Skip to main content

Full text of "San Francisco container terminal modernization, draft evironmental impact report"

City and County of San Francisco 
Department of City Planning 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT 2 1 1985 

FfcBUC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO CONTAINER 
TERMINAL MODERNIZATION 

e DRAFT 
Environmental Impact Report 
85.123E 



Publication Date: October 18, 1985 
Public Comment Period: October 18, 1985 to December 2, 1985 
Public Hearing Date: November 21, 1985 



D 

REF 

387 . 5442 

* 'ritten comments should be sent to the Environmental Review Officer, 

nentof City Planning, 450 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 



GLOSSARY OF TERMS 



Backland : Area inland from container cranes where container cargo can be stored. 

Berth : Area of water adjacent to a wharf or pier in which a vessel docks. The 
typical length of a modern container berth is 1000 feet. 

Break-bulk : Cargo that is put into, or brought out of a ship's hold in small bulk 
quantities, usually on a pallet or in a cargo net, such as coffee, bananas and 
paper. Traditional method of cargo handling, usually conducted along finger piers. 

Bridging : Modern method of shipping cargo across the U.S. via intermodal or rail 
connections. Cargo is off loaded at ports and put on rail cars for destinations 
within the U.S. ( micro-bridge ) or to another port ( mini-bridge ) and continued 
shipment (via ship) to a destination such as Europe ( land bridge ). 

COFC : Container on flat car. New flat cars would permit two 40-foot containers 
( stacked two high) on a single rail car for more efficient transportation. Ten 40 
ft. containers can fit on new 280-foot articulated rail cars. 

Combination Berth : A berth with facilities that can accommodate a ship carrying 
container, break bulk and ro/ro cargo. 

Container Cargo : Commodities that are placed in steel containers (20 to 45 ft. x 8 
ft. x 8 to 9.5 ft.) for transport via ship, rail or truck. Containers have become 
the prevalent means of cargo handling in the Pacific basin and throughout most of 
the world. Containers are sturdy, weather-tight "boxes" that can be easily stacked 
either within or on top of a ship and quickly transfered to other transportation 
modes such as truck or train. Containers can be refrigerated for transport of 
perishable items (refers). 

CFS : Container freight station. A building/warehouse where containers can be 
opened and unpacked/repacked or transl oaded to a flatbed truck as necessary before 
continuing to their final destination. 

Dolphin : A group of piles driven close together and tied together to provide a 
fixed mooring point or a guide for ships coming into a narrow harbor entrance. 

Dry Bulk : Cargoes loaded or unloaded via conveyor belts, spouts or scoops; loose 
commodities such as rice, grain and various ores. 

FEU : see TEU, inside back cover. 

High, wide and heavy cargo : Rail cargo which cannot go over highways because of 
width and weight and/or too high to go under bridges. 

ICTF : Intermodal Container Transfer Facility. A rail yard where containers from 
other modes such as ships and trucks are transfered to rail cars or vice versa. 

Intermodal : Between different modes of transportation. State of the art cargo 
movement is predicated upon the quick transfer of containers between different 
shipping modes such as from ship to train or from train to truck. 

Land bridge : see Bridging. 

• 

LASH : Lighter Aboard Ship. A method of ocean transport which uses lighters (i.e. 
barges) capable of carrying smaller, standard-sized containers, general cargo or 
bulk cargo. LASH barges are taken aboard ship or unloaded by shipboard cranes. 



(continued inside back cover) 




3 1223 03529 7259 

City and County of San Francisco 
Department of City Planning 



450 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



ADMINISTRATION 

(4151 558 - 5111 / 558-4656 

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
(415) 558 - 4656 

PLANS AND PROGRAMS 
(415) 558 - 4541 

IMPLEMENTATION / ZONING 
(415) 558 - 3055 



SAN FRANCISCO CONTAINER TERMINAL MODERNIZATION 



DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 




SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



85.123E 



REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



ion Date: October 18, 1985 

i: October 18, 1985 to December 2, 1985 

•ing Date: November 21, 1985 



Written comments should be sent to the Environmental Review Officer, 
Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 



D REF 387.5442 Sa52 



San Francisco container 
terminal modernization, 
1985. 



3 1223 03529 7259 




&oj|r£^ City and County of San Francisco 
Department of City Planning 



450 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



ADMINISTRATION 

(415) 558-5111 / 558-4656 

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
(415) 558-4656 

PLANS AND PROGRAMS 
(415) 558 - 4541 

IMPLEMENTATION / ZONING 
(415) 558 - 3055 



SUBJECT: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report 

This is the draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San 
Francisco Container Terminal Modernization. A public hearing will be held 
on the adequacy and the accuracy of this document on November 21, 1985. 
After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document 
titled "Summary of Comments and Responses," which will contain a summary of 
all relevant comments on this Draft EIR and our responses to those com- 
ments. It may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Those who testify 
at the hearing on the draft will automatically receive a copy of the Com- 
ments and Responses document along with notice of the date reserved for 
certification (usually about 9 weeks after the hearing on the draft); 
others may receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting our 
office. This Draft EIR, together with the Summary of Comments and Responses 
document, will be considered by the City Planning Commission in an adverti- 
sed public meeting and certified as a Final EIR if deemed adequate. 

After certification, we will modify the Draft EIR as specified by the Com- 
ments and Responses document and print both documents in a single publication 



October 18, 1985 



TO: 



Distribution List for the San Francisco Container Terminal 
Modernization DEIR 



FROM: 



Barbara W. Sahm, Environmental Review Officer 



called the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Final EIR wi 1 1 add no 
new information to the combination of the two documents except to reproduce 
the certification resolution. It will simply provide the information in 
one rather than two documents. Therefore, if you receive a copy of the 
Comments and responses document in addition to the this copy of the Draft 
EIR, you will technically have a copy of the Final EIR. 

We are aware that many people who receive the Draft EIR and Summary of Com- 
ments and Responses have no interest in receiving virtually the same infor- 
mation after the EIR has been certified. To avoid expending money and 
paper needlessly, we would like to send copies of the Final EIR to private 
individuals only if they request them. 

If you want a copy of the Final EIR, please so indicate in the space pro- 
vided on the next page and mail the request to the Office of Environmental 
Review within two weeks after certification of the Final EIR. Any private 
party not requesting a Final EIR by that time will not be mailed a copy. 
Public agencies on the distribution list will automatically receive a copy 
of the Final EIR. Copies will also be available at the Department of City 
Planning, 450 McAllister Street - 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Thank you for your interest in this project. 



Please send me a copy of the Final Environmental Impact 
Report for the San Francisco Container Terminal Moderni- 
zation. 



Name: 

Address: 



City: 



State: 



(fold here) 



pi ace 
Ipostage 
here 



Department of City Planning 
Office of Environmental Review 
450 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



(fold here) 



Table of Contents 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I. SUMMARY 1 

CHAPTER II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 

Purpose of Project 6 

Location of Project 7 

Phase 1 7 

Phase II 19 

Permits Required for the Project 22 

Construction Schedule 25 

Project Cost 26 

CHAPTER III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 28 

Land Use Setting 28 

Historical Perspective 28 

The Port of San Francisco 31 

Existing Facilities and Use: North Terminal 37 

Existing Facilities and Use: Islais Creek Channel and Bridge 38 

Existing Facilities and Use: South Terminal 40 

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 40 

Pier 98 Biology 42 

Transportation 44 

Air Quality 49 

Plans and Policies Relevant to the Proposed Project 52 

CHAPTER IV. IMPACTS 64 

Impacts Determined to be Insignificant 64 

Transportation Impacts 67 

i 



Table of Contents 



Emergency Services 95 

Train Noise Impacts 97 

Air Quality Impacts 100 

Biological Impacts 108 

Public Open Space 110 

Bay Fill and Fill Removal 113 

Potential Hazards of Methane from Decomposing Fill 116 

Business Displacement 118 

Growth Inducing Impacts 120 

CHAPTER V. MITIGATION MEASURES 122 

Transportation Mitigation 122 

Train/Emergency Vehicle Conflict Mitigation Measures 127 

Air Pollution Mitigation Measures 128 

Biological Mitigation Measures 129 

Publ ic Access 130 

Dredging and Fill Removal Mitigation 131 

Methane Hazard Mitigation 132 

Settlement Mitigation 132 

Islais Creek Maritime Access 133 

Historic Resources Mitigation 133 

Sewage Mitigation 134 

CHAPTER VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 

AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 135 

CHAPTER VII. ALTERNATIVES 135 

Alternative 1. No Project 135 

Alternative 2. 2.5 Acre Parcel Purchase / Addition at 

North Terminal 1 136 

Alternative 3. A Fixed Bridge Over Islais Creek 138 

i i 



Table of Contents 



CHAPTER VIII. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 139 

CHAPTER IX. DISTRIBUTION LIST 143 

CHAPTER X. APPENDICES A-l 

A. Initial Study A-2 

B. Transportation Level of Service Definitions A-38 

C. Air Quality: San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary A-39 

D. Liner Services Calling the SFCT A-41 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1. Project Location 8 

2. Present Site Plan 9 

3. Project Site Plan: Phase 1 10 

4. Project Site Plan: Phase II 11 

5. North Terminal Facilities 13 

6. Container Crane 14 

7. Port Packer and Transtainer 16 

8. View of South Terminal from Pier 98 20 

9. South Terminal Facilities 21 

10. Bay Area Port Facilities 32 

11. Subsidence at the North Terminal 39 

12. Pier 98: View to the East from Land End of Spit 43 

13. Roadways in Project Area 47 

14. Location of Bayshore Train Yard 90 

15. Potential Train Interference with Emergency Services 96 

16. South Terminal Soil Conditions in Area of New 

Terminals for Phase II 114 

17. Ground Cross-section Through Phase II Terminal Area 115 

18. Location of Additional Parcel Considered in 

Alternative 2 137 

i ii 



Table of Contents 



LIST OF TABLES 

1. Projections of SFCT Throughput Capacity (short tons) 23 

2. Project Costs to be Covered by Bonds Approved in 1984 26 

3. Comparison of Cargo Handled at Ports of San Francisco 

and Oakl and 35 

4. Port of San Francisco Total Cargo by Trade Route 35 

5. 1984 Port of San Francisco Revenue by Source 36 

6. Ten Largest Cargo-Handling Billings, Port of San 

Francisco, 1983-1984 36 

7. Characteristics of SFCT Imports and Exports 37 

8. Traffic Volumes on Amador Street 46 

9. Road Facilities Serving Piers 46 

10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan and 
Special Area Plan No. 1 54 

11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan 60 

12. 1985 V/C Ratios at Approaches to Critical Signalized 
Intersections Near SFCT (Peak Directions) 70 

13. Vehicle Use of Terminals by Type of Vehicle 70 

14. Trip Distribution of Terminal Traffic 72 

15. North Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation 72 

16. South Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation 74 

17. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Phase I Port 

Expansion 74 

18. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Phase II Port 

Expansion 75 

19. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Deletion of 

Interterminal Bridge 77 

20. 1995 Traffic Estimates for 1-280 Ramps 77 

21. Estimated 1995 Freeway Vol umes -(Demand) 79 

22. Traffic Generation From New Generators 1995 81 

iv 



Table of Contents 



23. 1995 Peak Hour Traffic Load Added by New Land Development 

(Peak Direction) Vehicles per Hour 81 

24. Baseline 1995 V/C Ratios: Peak Di rections— Exi sting 1985 Signal 
Timing and Striping Conditions, No Added Port Traffic 84 

25. 1995 V/C Ratios: Peak Di rections--Timing and Striping 
Optimized, No Added Port Traffic 86 

26. Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: Phase I Port Traffic Included 86 

27. Effect of Interterminal Bridge on Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: 

Port Traffic Phases I and II Included 87 

28. Construction Schedule for Islais Creek Area Construction 

Projects 88 

29. Cumulative Traffic Impacts During Peak Construction Period 
of August-November 1986 (construction + non-construction 
traffic): V/C Ratios with Traffic Striping and Signal 

Timing Optimized 88 

30. Vehicular Delay Caused by ICTF Trains 93 

31. On-Street Parking Conditions 93 

32. Emissions from Heavy Duty Truck Trips Associated with 

Phase I and Phase II SFCT Improvements (in tons per year) 104 

33. Train and Ship Contributions to Bay Area Air Pollution 

in 1979 and 2000 107 



v 



: 

: 

I 

I 
I 
l 

l 



Summary 



CHAPTER I. SUMMARY* 



Project Description 

The Port of San Francisco proposes to modernize its container handling 
facilities along the southern waterfront immediately north and south of 
Islais Creek (see Figure 1, page 7, for project location). 

Phase I of the project would include conversion of the North Terminal (the 
area immediately north of Islais Creek) into a full "'"container cargo faci- 
lity with three container ^berths, one ^combination berth capable of 
handling containers or "'"break-bulk cargo, and up to four new electric con- 
tainer cranes. Leveling of existing "*"backland area, improved utility ser- 
vices and miscellaneous support building work would be part of this conver- 
sion. 

Phase I would also include an "'"Intermodal Container Transfer Facil ity (ICTF) 
at the south edge of the South Terminal (the area south of Islais Creek) 
for the direct transfer of cargo between ship and train without intermediate 
use of highway vehicles. The addition of new truck lanes, reconfiguration of 
the South Terminal gatehouse, repaving and improved utility services would 
permit increased "^throughput at the South Terminal. 

A new drawbridge across Islais Creek on Port property would be built to 
avoid the need for trucking cargo over public streets to move it between 
the North Terminal and the South Terminal. 

* Please refer to the glossary located on the inside of the front and back 
covers for definitions of terms used throughout this document. Terms 
defined in the glossary are marked with a dagger ( t ) at first use. 



1 



Summary 



At Pier 98, just south of the container terminals, an 11-acre spit extends 
into the Bay. Part of this area would be developed for public access, 
recreation, open space and habitat preserve. 

The North Terminal improvements (including two new cranes), the ICTF and the 
Pier 98 development would be funded by bonds approved by the voters on 
November 6, 1984. The new bridge and any additional cranes would be funded 
from Port revenues or other sources. Figure 3, page 9, shows the facili- 
ties upon completion of Phase I. 

Phase II development, which has not yet been funded, would provide two con- 
tainer berths (one the conversion of an existing break-bulk berth) at the 
south side of Islais Creek. Figure 4, page 10, shows the facilities upon 
completion of Phase II. 

Impacts 

The project would increase truck traffic on City streets and adjacent free- 
ways. With implementation of Phase I, the Level of Service at the intersec- 
tion of Third and Army Streets would decrease from B to C (see Appendix 
page A-38 for definitions) during the A.M. peak hour. The Levels of Ser- 
vice at the intersections of Third Street and Cargo Way and Third Street 
and Evans Avenue during the morning and afternoon peak periods and Third 
and Army Streets during the evening peak would not change. Implementation 
of Phase II would not cause any further change in Levels of Service at 
these intersections. New Port traffic would not affect 1-280 on-ramps at 
Evans Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue or off-ramps at Evans Avenue and Army 
Street. 



2 



Summary 



1-280 and US 101 north of the San Mateo County line are expected to exceed 
capacity at peak hour in 1995 with or without the proposed project. Phases 
I and II combined would increase demand for 1-280 by 0.4% and for US 101 by 
0.3%. This increase would prolong the period of operation of these freeways 
at capacity and would divert some trips off of the freeways onto City 
streets. 

Increased train traffic associated with the ICTF would increase the proba- 
bility of train delay of emergency service vehicles on streets near the 
SFCT and would increase train noise along the train route. 

Development of public open space at Pier 98 would not affect any endangered 
species. 

Fill consisting of debris, sand and bay mud would be removed from the south 
side of Islais Creek in Phase II, resulting in a small increase in Bay water 
area. The fill would be removed and disposed of in a manner to minimize 
potential water quality and biological impacts. 

The interterminal bridge would require a U.S. Coast Guard Permit. The 
project would require approval by the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commi ssion. 

The proposed project is within the growth projections of the San Francisco 
Bay Area Seaport Plan. The EIR for this Plan found that expansion of faci- 
lities at the Port of San Francisco would have the least environmental 
impacts on air quality of any sites considered. 



3 



Summary 



Mitigation Measures 

Mi tigati on measures included in the project would encourage use of public 
transit and van pooling by cargo terminal operators, develop methods for 
notifying emergency services of train movements which could impede emergency 
vehicle movement, minimize the biological impact of human presence at Pier 
98, and provide safety measures for construction on fill where some methane 
is being generated. The project would shift the modal split for cargo move- 
ment from truck to rail, thus decreasing traffic, air and energy impacts 
caused by increased maritime activity. 

The bridge over Islais Creek would constitute 0.5 to 1.1 acre of fill which 
would be more than offset by Port fill credits from the removal of piers. 
Removal of 0.89 acres of fill in Islais Creek during Phase II would offset 
a portion of the fill at Pier 98. The status of the existing fill at Pier 
98 is a complex issue which would be evaluated by BCDC in their permit 
process. 

Al ternatives 

The No Project Alternative would have greater traffic, air and energy con- 
sumption impacts than the proposed project, because a greater percentage of 
cargo would travel by truck and less by rail than with the project. 

Acquisition of a 2.5 acre parcel near the North Terminal would facilitate 
design of the entrance to the Terminal for minimum truck-handling time and 
provide more truck queueing space on Port property. The Port may decide to 
implement this alternative in the future after examining the functioning of 
the Phase I redesign of the North Terminal entrance. 



4 



Summary 



A fixed interterminal bridge over Islais Creek was considered and dropped 
in favor of the proposed drawbridge, after consultation with the Coast 
Guard, in consideration of the impacts of closing the west end of Islais 
Creek to navigation. 



5 



Project Description 



CHAPTER II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION * 



Purpose of Project 

The Port of San Francisco proposes to modernize its "^container handling 
facilities along the southern waterfront in the area of the North and South 
Container Terminals (formerly Pier 80/Army Street Terminal and Piers 94-96, 
respectively). The Port is proposing three cargo handling facility improve- 
ments and a waterfront open space area. The project would be developed in 
two phases. 

Improvements are being proposed for the San Francisco Container Terminal 
('''SFCT) in order to accommodate projected demands of shipping lines now 
using SFCT facilities and to maintain the Port's current market share of 
"•"container cargo. The project has been formulated with consideration for 
market demand, the desires of current customers, anticipated needs of pre- 
sent and future customers, engineering design constraints, applicable regu- 
lations, the necessity to minimize disruption of current operations, flexi- 
bility to adapt to possible future changes in needs, and cost. Typical 
vessel occupancy of the ^berths is expected to be 60-65%, with a maximum of 
80-85%. }_ 

The ultimate goal of any container operation is to achieve maximum "^through- 
put at minimum cost. The proposed project would enable the Port to handle 



* Please refer to the glossary located on the inside of the front and back 
covers for definitions of terms used throughout this document. Terms 
defined in the glossary are marked with a dagger (*) at first use. 



Project Description 



more cargo vessels, reduce the handling time per vessel and per container, 
reduce handling cost per container, and reduce vessel and train turn-around 
time. 

Shippers pay the Port four types of fees. They pay "dockage" for the time 
a vessel is tied up at a berth, "wharfage" for passage of cargo over the 
wharf, "demurrage" for any time the cargo spends on dock beyond allowed 
free time, and container crane rental. Wharfage is assessed per ''"metric ton 
or per cubic meter, depending on the commodity, or per container. Wharfage 
and demurrage costs are generally greater than dockage costs. Decreases in 
time to handle containers increase the number of payload trips per ship per 
year and decrease dockage and demurrage costs per container and, therefore, 
make a port facility more attractive to potential clients. 

Location of Project 

The SFCT consists of the North Container Terminal, a 69-acre site north of 
Islais Creek on all of Assessor's Block 4304, and the South Terminal, 
approximately 160 acres south of Islais Creek on all of Assessor's Block 
4502A. Both sites are active port terminals in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) 
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The locations of the existing 
and proposed facilities are shown on Figures 1-4, pages 8 to 11. 

Phase I 

North Terminal 

The North Terminal would be modernized into a full container cargo facility 
with three container berths (N2, N3 and N4) and one ''"combination or "combo" 
berth (Nl) capable of handling containers or "^break-bulk cargo. Capacity 
to handle "'"Ro-Ro (roll-on-roll-off ) cargo would be retained at berth N4. 

(text continues on page 12 after figures) 
7 




8 



Project Description 



No new berths would be constructed; one existing break-bulk berth (Nl) 
would be converted to a container berth (see Figure 5, page 13, for loca- 
tions of berths). 

Up to four new 100-ft. electric gage container cranes and container retriev- 
al equipment would be installed. Some or all of the existing, smaller, 
34-ft. cranes may be retained. The gage of a crane refers to the spacing 
between the rails on which it runs. Rails permit the cranes to be moved 
from berth to berth as needed to load and unload vessels (see photo of 
crane in operation in Figure 6, page 14). The new cranes would run on the 
existing wharf-edge rail and a new, land-side rail. New piles would be 
driven to support the new rail . 

Six trucks can operate between the legs of a 100-ft. gage crane, whereas 
two trucks can maneuver between the legs of a 34-ft. crane. Containers can 
be transferred to or from trucks more efficiently by 100 ft. cranes. 

One of the existing three cargo storage sheds (Shed C, approximately 125,000 
sq. ft.) would be demolished to increase ^backland storage area, improve con- 
tainer movement, and provide improved access to berth N2. All or portions 
of two existing storage sheds (A and D) would remain to provide covered 
storage for break-bulk, combo and Ro-Ro cargo. 

Two buildings, up to 4,000 sq. ft. each, with offices, lunchrooms and rest- 
rooms would be constructed for use by longshoremen and shipping clerks. 
One would be in front of berth N2 and the other would be between berths N3 
and N4 on the south side of the North Terminal. The buildings would be 
less than 40 ft. tall. The existing administration, maintenance and ser- 
vice buildings would remain. The terminal entrance and gate house would be 

12 




13 




14 



Project Description 



modified to alleviate existing truck congestion and delays at the entrance. 
Backland area for container storage would be improved, including modifica- 
tions of lighting, electrical, and other utility systems, with provisions 
for container handling by top loaders (^port packers), mobile rubber-tired 
yard gantry cranes ( + transtainers) or straddle carrier operations (see 
Figure 7, page 16, for pictures of transtainers and port packers). 

About 18 acres of the terminal yard, which have undergone settlement, would 
be filled with gravel, releveled and paved with asphalt or removable, inter- 
locking concrete paving blocks. The latter could be lifted before and 
reinstalled after leveling operations necessitated by future settlement. 
An underground fuel storage tank could be part of a fueling station for 
diesel equipment such as cranes and port packers. 

There would be storage space and associated handling equipment for 20-, 40- 
and 45-foot containers. The backland area would be designed to accommodate 
one and one half times the "immediate projected "''throughput needs on peak 
days. "2 

A relocated entrance gate would alleviate some of the existing inbound 
truck traffic congestion by providing increased truck queuing space. 

Maintenance dredging at the existing N2 (at the Bay end of the North Termi- 
nal) and N3 (on Islais Creek) berths would maintain access for vessels with 
a draft of 39 feet. Surveys indicate a depth of approximately 40 feet 
below ^rnean lower low water (MLLW) at these berths. 

1984 SFCT-North throughput was 580,000 "•'revenue tons/year, or about 390,000 
"•"short tons. The capacity would increase from 540,000 short tons in 1985 
to 810,000 short tons/yr. in 1988 (a potential increase of 50% over 1985) 

15 



Figure 7. Port Packer and Transtainer 




16 



Project Description 

and to 1,000,000 short tons/yr. in 1995 with implementation of Phase I of 
the proposed project (an increase of 85% over 1985 and a 23% increase over 
1988). 

Islais Creek Bridge 

A drawbridge across Islais Creek would extend Illinois Street southward, 
joining the North and South Terminals, to expedite rail and truck trips 
between the two terminals and to keep short-haul traffic off City streets. 
This would eliminate time and costs associated with transfer from port 
packer on Port property to truck on City street to port packer on Port pro- 
perty. It would also eliminate the transfer of cargo documentation, cus- 
toms clearances, and changes of labor unions and contractors, all of which 
are necessary when containers are transferred from the terminals to city 
streets and back again. The bridge would carry two lanes of truck traffic 
and one set of train rails, with provision for two more lanes of truck 
traffic and a second rail line. 

South Terminal 

The existing gatehouse at SFCT-South has five inbound truck lanes, three 
outbound lanes and three scales to weigh containers. The existing building 
houses customs and other offices. Separation of entry to Piers 94 and 96 
would be achieved by adding a canopy to an existing administration building 
together with eight new inbound lanes and five new outbound lanes. The new 
lanes would serve Pier 96 and the old lanes would serve Pier 94. No new 
scales would be added because transtainers with built-in scales to weigh 
the containers would be used at Pier 96. SFCT-South would be regraded and 
repaved as needed due to settlement and increased weight of equipment and 
cargo to be handled; utilities and light standards would be installed or 



17 



Project Description 



relocated as needed. A fence would separate the two Piers. 
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 

A permanent on-dock "^Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) would be 
developed on approximately 60 acres along the southwest edge of the South 
Terminal, expanding the capacity of existing facilities to provide the Ter- 
minal with direct rail access for "hand-bridge movement of containers 
(^COFC, container on flat car, and + T0FC, trailer on flat car). The tracks 
would accommodate a 25-car single or double stacked train of 100 +FEU 
capacity. The 2500- to 3000-ft.-l ong trains would be more frequently 
outbound than inbound because in-bound cargo tends to arrive in shorter 
segments which accumulate as a vessel is expected, while shiploads of 
containers are outbound at the same time. 

There would be a maximum of 32 shuttle train operations per day between the 
ICTF and the Bayshore train yard with the ICTF operating at capacity. A 
maximum of ten assembled ^unit trains per day would travel between the Bay- 
shore yard and San Jose. The ICTF would be designed to handle strings of 
up to 25 cars for assembly into unit trains at a train yard south of San 
Francisco in a "'"sling-shot operation rather than full 50-car unit trains. 
The design of the ICTF is under development. 

The ICTF is expected to handle about 70,000 short tons of cargo in 1985, 
using March 1985 as the basis for projection. Throughput capacity is 
projected to increase to 1,120,000 short tons in 1988 (an increase of 15 
times over 1985) and to 2,240,000 short tons in 1995 (a doubling of 1988 
throughput) with implementation of • Phase I of the proposed project. 3 

18 



Project Description 

Intermodal containers arriving or departing the ICTF without passing over 
the dock are termed domestic ICTF traffic. This cargo generally arrives by 
train and goes directly by truck to Bay Area destinations, generally within 
200 miles. 

The facility would include a container freight station C^CFS) and an automo- 
bile parking lot. The 100,000 sq. ft. CFS would probably be built in two 
50,000 sq. ft. stages. It would be a customs secure area for unpacking and 
repacking containers before they reach their final destinations. The CFS 
would be used for containers on both trucks and rail cars. A fueling 
facility with underground or surface mounted tanks would provide diesel 
fuel for container handling equipment and yard transportation vehicles. 

Public Access to San Francisco Bay 

At Pier 98 an 11-acre man-made spit extends into the Bay. A tidal marsh 
has developed on the south side. Some of the area would be developed for 
public access, recreation, open space and habitat preserve. Maritime acti- 
vities at the South Terminal would be visible from this area (see Figure 8, 
page 20). Off-street parking would be provided for the public. This faci- 
lity has not been designed yet. Biological constraints on the design are 
covered by mitigation measures on page 129. 

Phase II (see Figures 4, page 11, and 9, page 21) 

Two container berths would be added to the South Terminal along the south 
side of Islais Creek through conversion of an existing break-bulk berth, 
addition of a new berth, and installation of four new container cranes. 
Some existing fill on the south side of Islais Creek would be removed to 
widen the channel in order to provide both maneuvering room for two vessels 



19 



Project Description 




Project Description 



Figure 9. South Terminal Facilities 




PIER 98 (PUBLIC ACCESS) Source: Bendix E 

PHASE I Research, Inc. 



21 



Project Description 

at berths opposite each other and a more stable area on which to build 
shore facilities. This would result in a decrease in Bay fill. Islais 
Creek may be dredged two feet deeper from its mouth to the Phase II berths, 
deepening it from 40 to 42 feet, to provide access for deeper draft vessels. 
No additional dredging would occur west of the Third Street Bridge. Ships 
would continue to be able to pass up Islais Creek when vessels were moored 
at opposite berths of the North and South Terminals. 

A mooring "^dolphin would be used at the mouth of Islais Creek in order to 
avoid placing a pile-supported wharf on the unstable fill area at the north- 
east corner of the South Terminal. 

Development of these berths would require relocation of the existing KSFO 
radio tower and other existing Port tenants. Three of the six tenants are 
on monthly leases (see Fig. 9, page 21, for locations of tenants). 

Without Phase II development, throughput of the South Terminal is expected 
to increase from 570,000 short tons in 1984 to 910,000 short tons in 1988 
(an increase of 60% over 1984). Phase II would allow SFCT-South to handle 
an additional 910,000 short tons of cargo in 1988, doubling the throughput 
capacity of the Terminal. A summary of projected Phase I and Phase II 
throughput is given in Table 1, page 23. 

Permits Required for the Project 

Under the authority of the General Bridge Act of 1946 and the River and Har- 
bors Act of 1899, the Coast Guard requires Bridge Permits approving loca- 
tion and plans for bridges affecting- navigable waters of the U.S. Pursuant 
to this responsibl ity , the Coast Guard will act as Lead Federal Agency for 
the proposed project, with particular concern for the effects a bridge over 

22 



Project Description 



Table 1. Projections of SFCT Throughput Capacity (short tons). 

Terminal 1984 1 Annual Throughput Capacity 

Component Cargo 1985 1988 1995 



SFCT-North, Present 390,000 

SFCT-North, Phase I 540,000 810,000 1,000,000 5 

ICTF, Phase I 3 70,000 4 1,120,000 2,240,000 

SFCT-South, Present 570,000 

SFCT-South, Phase I 910,000 910,000 910,000 

SFCT-South, Phases I & II 1,820,000 

SFCT-North + 2,820,000 
South I & II 



1. Short tons calculated from revenue tons in Port of San Francisco, "Ca- 
lendar Year Tonnage by Facility," April 4, 1985, divided by a factor of 
1.5 to convert to approximate equivalent short tons. Actual cargo sta- 
tistics are recorded only in revenue tons. 

2. Capacity in short tons, assuming no empty containers and an average of 
13 short tons/container. From Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 ler, "Container 
Throughput Study," May 15, 1985. 

3. Note that most ICTF cargo also passes through one of the Terminals so it 
is not additive with Terminal throughput except for domestic cargo which 
is a relatively small portion of the ICTF total. Capacity figures from 
Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 1 er, "Container Throughput Study," April 1985. 

4. 1985 estimate based on March 1985 throughput. 

5. SFCT-North capacity increases with time towards its theoretical through- 
put capacity as backland constraints are removed. 

Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



23 



Project Description 

Islais Creek would have on existing and potential public rights of naviga- 
tion on the Creek. All Coast Guard bridge actions require compliance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

If the project is found to affect an endangered or threatened wildlife spe- 
cies, a formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 
be required under §7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wild- 
life Coordination Act. 

The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has jurisdiction over fill, dredging and 
dredge spoils disposal under §§9 and 10 of the River and Harbors Act and §404 
of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' primary role in Phase I would be as com- 
menting agency in the Coast Guard permit process. Corps permits would be 
required for any dredging and spoils disposal activities in Phase I not co- 
vered by existing permits and for dredging, fill removal, dredge spoils and 
fill disposal in connection with proposed Phase II activities. Corps per- 
mits may be required for crane erection in both phases. 

State Lands Commission (SLC) jurisdiction over submerged lands and stream 
beds affected by the project is delegated to the City and County of San 
Francisco by the Burton Act. The SLC is kept apprised of project plans by 
the Port. 

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) would require a per- 
mit pursuant to its reponsibil ities under the McAteer-Petri s Act and would 
be concerned with compliance with that Act, the San Francisco Bay Area Sea- 
port Plan, and the San Francisco Bay Plan (in particular the Special Area 
Plan #1 covering the area of the San Francisco shoreline in which the pro- 
ject is located). BCDC would be particularly concerned with provision of 



24 



Project Description 

public access to the Bay at Pier 98. BCDC would inform the Coast Guard 
about project compliance with §307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management 
Act of 1972. The Port would request BCDC to amend the Bay Plan to delete 
the marine terminal designation of Pier 98. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) would provide the 
Coast Guard with a determination of consistency with the State Implementa- 
tion Plan and the Bay Area Air Quality Plan pursuant to §§176 and 309 of 
the Clean Ai r Act. 

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) , under powers delegated by 
the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control 
Board, would certify compliance with §401 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act of 1972 to the Coast Guard. 

After certification of this EIR, the Port Commission would formally decide 
whether to undertake the project; declare Pier 98 surplus land under the 
Burton Act, so that it could be used for public open space; apply for and 
accept a BCDC permit for the project; authorize planning, detailed design 
and construction funds; and issue building permits for the project. 

Construction Schedule 

Construction would proceed during continued operation of the SFCT. Comple- 
tion of the ICTF is scheduled for 1987. Completion of the bridge is tenta- 
tively scheduled for 1987-1989. The ICTF may operate indefinitely without 
a bridge. Timing of bridge construction would depend on the actual rate of 
throughput increases, the volume of intertermi nal traffic and cost-effec- 
tiveness. Completion of North Terminal berth and container storage facili- 
ties is scheduled for 1987. Two cranes would be installed at that time. 



25 



Project Description 



Table 2. Project Costs 

SFCT-North 

Yard improvements 
Two cranes 

ICTF 

SFCT-South 

Yard improvements 
Bond costs and required reserves 



to be Covered by Bonds Approved in 1984. 

$17.5 mil lion 
5.5 mil 1 ion 

6.4 mi 11 ion 

1.5 million 
7.1 million 

TOTAL $38.0 million 



Source: Port Commission of San Francisco, ^Official Statement Relating to 
$42,500,000 Port Commission of San Francisco Revenue Bonds, Series C, 1984," 
p. 19; Benjamin Kutnick, Fiscal Officer, Port of San Francisco, telephone 
conversation of August 5, 1985; and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



Additional cranes would be installed as demand developed. A decision on 
timing for construction of Phase II would be made by the Port Commission on 
the basis of the timing of increased steamship line demand for ICTF facili- 
ties and of availability of funds and may not be made until after 1990. 

Project Cost 

Phase I costs to be covered by the $42.5 million in bonds approved by the 
voters of San Francisco in 1984 are shown in Table 2, above. The interter- 
minal bridge would cost about $4 million and would be financed out of 

■ 

future Port revenues or other sources. Phase II would cost about $50 mil- 
lion. It would be eligible for California Urban Waterfront Area Restora- 



26 



Project Description 



tion Financing Authority Bonds (often referred to as CUWARFA bonds). 4 A 
decision on a financing mechanism would be made at the time of the decision 
to implement Phase II. 



PROJECT DESCRIPTION NOTES: 

1. Based on assumption of 250 eight-hour days/year, Eugene M. Blazik, Pro- 
ject Manager, Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 ler, telephone conversation of August 
27, 1985. 

2. Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 ler, "Executive Summary, San Francisco Container 
Terminal (North Terminal), Engineering Feasibility Study," March 1985, 
page 27, available for public review in the project file at the Depart- 
ment of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

3. Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 ler, "SFCT Throughput Capacity Study," March 3, 
1985, 1 page, available for public review at the Department of City 
Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

4. The Coastal Conservancy plays a key role in carrying out the provisions 
of SB 997, 1983, which created the low-cost bond financing mechanism 
for CUWARFA bonds. The interest on bonds issued for qualifying pro- 
jects is generally exempt from federal and state taxes. As a result, 
the bonds are customarily sold at interest rates two to five percentage 
points lower than the prevailing rates of conventional financing. The 
financing is intended to facilitate projects that promise benefits with 
respect to environmental enhancement and local economic stimulation. 



27 



Setting 



CHAPTER III. Environmental Setting 



Land Use Setting 

The project area is on the eastern shoreline of San Francisco immediately 
north and south of Islais Creek. The Port of San Francisco has jurisdic- 
tion over the shoreline. Inland from the maritime facilities, and along 
portions of the shore without maritime development, rail and industrial 
uses dominate. Western Pacific and Southern Pacific rail yards serve the 
Port and other San Francisco-based activities. Many of the industrial uses 
involve low intensity distribution functions such as wholesaling and stor- 
age. 

The shoreline from Eighteenth Street to Donahue Street is zoned M-2, Heavy 
Industrial. Near Islais Creek the M-2 zoning extends west to the James 
Lick Freeway. North of the project site the nearest M-l, Light Industrial 
District, is about a third of a mile northwest and the nearest residenti al ly 
zoned area is an RC-2, Residential-Commercial Combined District: Moderate 
Density, which extends along the west side of Third Street part of the way 
between Twenty-second and Twenty-third Streets almost a mile north of the 
site. South of Islais Creek there are several M-l areas south of Evans 
Avenue. The nearest residential district is an RH-1, Residential, House 
District, One-Family, approximately one half mile from the ICTF site. 

Historical Perspective 

Prior to 1960 the most common form of cargo handling was break-bulk. This 
type of shipping has been used for hundreds of years. A ship would travel 



28 



Setting 



directly to a port and dock alongside a finger pier, like those lining San 
Francisco's waterfront, to unload goods. Goods were moved out of a ship's 
hold in small units; they would then be stored inside a pier shed, out of 
the weather, until they could be moved by truck or rail car to their final 
destination. Similarly, outbound, export cargo would move by rail or truck 
to pier shed to be loaded on ships. This type of cargo movement dictated 
the size of ships that could most efficiently transport the cargo as well 
as the size and layout of shore facilities that would store the cargo. 

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, watertight steel containers for 
cargo were developed and within ten years emerged as the dominant mode of 
cargo movement over the world's oceans. Containers have become popular 
because they are climate-controlled, customs-secure units that can be 
easily stored and moved by various transportation modes. Containers func- 
tion like "envelopes" in the port: each one can be packed by the exporter, 
addressed to a particular party or location, and shipped quickly by sea, 
rail and truck to the intended receiver. If necessary, individual con- 
tainers can be kept refrigerated from origin to destination, making pos- 
sible the transport of perishable items. Containers can be opened at spe- 
cial freight stations, where goods can be added to or removed from con- 
tainers before they reach their final destination. A small container 
vessel has a storage capacity of 1500 "*"TEUs (twenty-foot-long containers). 
Lykes Lines, the largest user of the SFCT-North Terminal, has purchased six 
ships rated at 2500 TEU-capaci ty , which can actually carry 4000 TEUs. 

Containerized cargo has changed ocean transport routes and brought rail- 
roads into play as an integral component of worldwide shipping. In Pacific 
Basin trade, cargo arrives via larger and larger container ships. These 



29 



Setting 



ships dock only at major west coast ports, such as San Francisco, to off- 
load their cargos. Goods are then either absorbed by the regional market 
or transported inland via truck and rail. 

An important development in this type of cargo transport has been the land- 
bridge concept. Container ships seldom pass through the Panama Canal any 
longer. Instead, steamship companies land cargo at west coast ports and 
use transcontinental rail connections as a "bridge" from the Pacific Ocean 
to the Atlantic Ocean. When containers arrive by rail at east and Gulf 
coast ports they may again be loaded on ships to continue their journey to 
Europe. Deregulation of railroad freight rates and the development of new 
rail technology, such as rail cars capable of handling containers stacked 
two high, have contributed to the increased competitiveness of rail trans- 
port versus truck transport on long hauls. Transit times for the ocean 
voyage and the rail trip across the country are fairly well established; 
the greatest potential for shortening total trip time lies in the procedures 
for container transfer between ship and train. 

Just as break-bulk cargo operations dictated the type and size of cargo 
vessels used and the type of shore facilities needed, so do containerized 
cargo operations. Movement of container cargo calls for deep water berths 
to handle ships of 2,500 TEUs and greater capacity, large amounts of back- 
land area for container storage and a rail connection to distribute and 
gather the container cargo. 

In the period from 1971 to 1981, the Pacific states' waterborne trade has 
grown by 132%. Containerized trade, .a portion of this percentage, has in- 
creased 256% during the same period.! jh e wes t coast of the United States 
is the only sector of the world where there have been yearly trade in- 

30 



Setting 



creases despite the world-wide economic slowdown over the last three years. 
Cargo handled on the West Coast has risen from 76 million revenue tons 
(mrt) in 1976 to 133 mrt in 1984. 

Most of the increase in Pacific Coast container trade has been absorbed by 
the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and Seattl e/Tacoma and, locally, by the 
Ports of Oakland and San Francisco. Smaller amounts of containerized cargo 
are handled in the Bay Area by Richmond, Redwood City and Encinal Terminal 
in Alameda (See Figure 10, page 32, for location of these ports). Four of 
the six Bay Area port operators are public: Oakland, Redwood City, Rich- 
mond and San Francisco. Benicia and Encinal are privately owned. Encinal 
is closing its operations. The Port of Richmond has the highest tonnage in 
the Bay Area because of its petroleum products traffic, which has been 
declining due to a decline in oil consumption. Richmond is also the larg- 
est automobile import/ export port in the Bay Area. The Port of Redwood 
City handles less than 5% of the tonnage that Richmond handles. At present, 
Tacoma is the only Pacific Coast port with on-dock intermodal container 
facilities. Seattl e/Tacoma is one day's travel time closer to Far-Eastern 
ports than the Bay Area on standard shipping routes. 

In the last ten years, Los Angeles cargo throughput has increased 100% and 
Bay Area throughput has increased 19%. Bay Area container cargo revenue 
has not increased as fast as predicted by the Army Corps of Engineers in 
their 1981 Bay Area Cargo Forecasts. 2 

The Port of San Francisco 

The Port of San Francisco's maritime activities include container and break- 
bulk cargo handling, commercial fishing, ship repair, passenger cruise 



31 



Setti ng 



FigurelO. Bay Area Port Facilities 




service, foreign trade zone activities and marinas. Non-maritime activi- 
ties include commercial recreation, offices and Fisherman's Wharf commer- 
cial activities. 



In the early 1960s, when the other Pacific Coast ports were developing 
container handling capabilities, the Port of San Francisco chose to pursue 
a course as a specialty port and cater to the needs of shipping lines that 
did not carry containerized cargo. This included a "''LASH (Lighter Aboard 
Ship) terminal at Pier 96 and retention of break-bulk operations tradition- 
ally conducted on the finger piers lining the waterfront. The demand for 
the specialized harbor that was envisioned for San Francisco did not mate- 
rialize. As a result of this decision, San Francisco experienced a net 
decline in the tonnage handled by the Port until 1978. 

32 



Setti ng 



During the 1970s the Port installed container cranes on two of its Southern 
Waterfront Terminals: Pier 80, a combination break-bulk and container ter- 
minal, and Piers 94/96. Each crane theoretically can move 50 containers 
per hour. Cranes achieve 60-75% of their theoretical capacity of container 
moves because they have functions other than moving containers, such as 
moving hatch covers and moving between hatches. 

Since the beginning of the 1980s, San Francisco has increased its effort to 
recapture its historic market share of trade by securing use agreements 
with steamship lines engaged in trade with the Far East/Pacific Basin. 
From 1980 to 1983 container tonnage handled by the Port of San Francisco 
has risen an average of 13% each year. 3 

San Francisco cargo tonnage increased for the sixth consecutive year in 1984. 
Total tonnage handled in San Francisco in 1984 was 2,160,000 metric revenue 
tons, a ten percent increase over 1983. The Port of San Francisco handles 
less cargo than the Port of Oakland which handled 13,800,000 metric revenue 
tons in 1984, for an increase of 17% over 1983. 

San Francisco container tonnage increased 13% from 1983 to 1984 and now 
makes up 75% of San Francisco general cargo^ and nearly 11% of Northern 
California's container revenue tonnage. San Francisco container facilities 
account for about 25% of the total Bay Area throughput capacity. See Table 
3, page 35, for a comparison of the cargo handled at the ports of San 
Francisco and Oakland. All Bay Area ports compete with the Ports of 
Seattl e/Tacoma and Los Angeles/Long Beach. 

The proposed project, together with natural deep water channels, available 
underdeveloped land, rail access, and ability to expand without net new Bay 



33 



Setti ng 



fill, would put San Francisco on better competitive terms with other ports 
in attracting new business. 

Transpacific trade is the Port's dominant route, see Table 4, page 35. San 
Francisco handled 78% of the Latin American cargo in the Bay Area in 1984. 5 
The main Latin American imports are coffee, meat, building board and cocoa 
beans; the main exports to Latin America are milk products, chemicals, 
vegetables, wood products and seeds. The 124,000 metric revenue tons of 
Latin American trade were a 3% increase over the previous peak year, 1982 
(120,000 mrt). 

A Southern Waterfront Master Plan, prepared by consultant Vi ckerman/Zachary/ 
Miller and adopted by the San Francisco Port Commission in 1982, recom- 
mended development programs to retain current users and attract new Port 
customers. The Plan provided for maintenance of the Port of San Francis- 
co's share of Bay Area container cargo, expansion consistent with the 
MTC/BCDC Seaport Plan, and improvement of rail service to the southern 
waterfront . 

Port revenue sources are shown in Tables 5 and 6, page 36. The characteris- 
tics of SFCT imports and exports are shown in Table 7, page 37. The South 
Terminal currently handles a higher percentage of container cargo than does 
the North Terminal. See Appendix D, page A-41 for a list of lines calling 
at the North and South Terminals. 

San Francisco voters approved a $42.5 million Revenue Bond issue for expan- 
sion and modernization of Port facilities in November, 1984. About ninety 
percent of this bond issue is targeted for modernization of the SFCT and 
ICTF. 

34 



Setting 



Table 3. Comparison of Cargo Handled at Ports of San Francisco and Oakland 



Characteristic 


San Francisco 


Oakl and 


1984 metric revenue tons handled 


2,160,000! 


13,800,000 2 


1984 % general cargo tonnage increase 
over 1983 


10% 


17% 2 


1983 container cargo % of general cargo 


71% 


86% 2 


1984 container cargo % of general cargo 


75% 


84 % 2 


1984 % container cargo increase over 1983 


13% 


15% 2 


1984 % total Bay Area cargo 


9%1 


44%1 



1. Louise Anderson, [marine] Traffic Analyst, Port of San Francisco, tele- 
phone conversation of August 2, 1985. 

2. Based on data from Ray Boyle, Manager, Tariff Analysis and Special Pro- 
grams, Port of Oakland, telephone conversation of July 26, 1985. 



Table 4. Port of San Francisco Total Cargo by Trade Route 



Trans-Paci fic 
Southeast Asia 
Canada 

South/Central America 
Australia/New Zealand 
Europe 



Source: Port of San Francisco, 1984 Annual Report. 



49% 
17% 
12% 
10% 
8% 
4% 



35 



Setting 



Table 5. 1984 Port of San Francisco Revenue by Source 



Maritime: 

Cargo handling, ship repair, passenger 
service, foreign trade zone 




35% 


Commerci al : 

Restaurants, marinas, office and 
retail shops, parking 




55% 


Other: 

Resale of electric power to tenants, 
interest, miscellaneous revenues 




10% 


Source: Port of San Francisco 1984 Annual Report 
Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Consultant, 
meeting of August 1, 1985. 


and Dr. 
Port of 


Randal 1 Rossi , 
San Francisco, 




Table 6. Ten Largest Cargo-Handling* Billings 
Port of San Francisco, 1983-1984. 


» 


Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc. (North Terminal) 




$ 1,540,000 


Evergreen Marine Corp. (South Terminal) 




1,510,000 


National Galleon Shipping Corp. (South Terminal) 




860,000 


EAC Lines (Both Terminals) 




510,000 


Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. (South Terminal) 




420,000 


Columbus Line (South Terminal) 




400,000 


Wallenius Line (Pier 70; automobiles) 




260,000 


Norsk Pacific (Piers 15, 17, and 48; newsprint) 




260,000 


Holland American Line (Pier 35; passengers) 




250,000 


Flota Mercante Grancol ombiana, S.A. (South Terminal) 




210,000 



*Wharfage, dockage and demurrage. 

Sources: Port Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, Official 
Statement Relating to $42,500,000 Port Commission of San Francisco Revenue 
Bond, Series C, 1984, page 17, and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



36 



Setting 



Table 7. Characteristics of SFCT Imports and Exports. 







Impo rts 




Exports 




Fi seal 


Fi seal 


% General 


Fi seal 


Fi seal 


% General 




1984 % 


1985 % 


Cargo 


1984 % 


1985 % 


Cargo 




Con- 


Con- 


Increase 


Con- 


Con- 


Increase 


Termi nal 


tainers 


tainers 


1984-1985 


tainers 


tainers 


1984-1985 


North 


65% 


75% 


42% 


85% 


93% 


44% 


South 


99% 


98% 


71% 


99% 


99% 


75% 



Source: Fiscal Year Revenue Tons, Port of San Francisco, July 1985, and 
Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



BACKGROUND NOTES: 

1. Pacific Merchants Shipping Association, "Maritime Industry, Pacific 
Region," 1982. 

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, prepared by Recht 
Hausrath & Assoc. & Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc., San Francisco Bay 
Area Cargo Forecast, 1981, cited in MTC/BCDC, San Francisco Bay Area 
Seaport Plan, Final Technical Report, 1982, p. 32. 

3. Port of San Francisco, 1983 Annual Report. 

4. San Francisco Chronicle, May 7 1985. 

5. Wharfside, magazine published by the Port of San Francisco, March/ 
April, 1985, p. 7. 



Existing Facilities and Use: North Terminal 



Existing SFCT-North facilities (Figure 5, page 13) are operated by Cali- 
fornia Stevedore & Ballast Company and handle break-bulk, Ro-Ro, combo and 
containerized cargo. These facilities accommodate deep-draft vessels (38 



37 



Setti ng 



foot depth at ^MLLW , mean lower low water). Nedlloyd Lines signed a five 
year use agreement in 1984, marking its return to San Francisco, where its 
ships had called for 51 years from 1931 to 1982. 

The terminal operator uses port packers or similar equipment to handle con- 
tainers. In the future transtainers may also be used. Rail tracks provide 
direct access to the Terminal and can accommodate high, wide and heavy load 
movements. Three inbound truck queues enter the gate where containers are 
weighed and inspected for damage. Fuel for diesel equipment is provided by 
truck from off-site. Three sheds at the North Terminal provide covered 
storage for cargo; a fourth shed (Shed B) was demolished in 1984 to pro- 
vide space for container storage. 

The site of the North Terminal was originally filled in 1964-1965. Ground 
subsidence is an ongoing problem for cargo handling operations because of 
the nature of the fill and the unconsolidated Bay muds that underlie the 
site. Settlement has been 8 to 9 feet in the eastern portion of the site 
(see Figure 11, page 39). 

Existing Facilities and Use: Islais Creek Channel and Bridge 

Pursuant to BCDC Permit No. 36-71, January 1972, Islais Creek is dredged, 
as needed, to maintain a depth of 40 ft. below MLLW east of the Third 
Street Bridge and 32 ft. below MLLW west of the Third Street Bridge. 
Dredged material is disposed of off Alcatraz Island at a site authorized by 
the US Army Corps of Engineers. The permit made a finding that this dredging 
would not undermine the stability of adjacent fill.* 

The existing Third Street bridge over Islais Creek has a clearance of 5 to 
11.5 feet, depending on the stage of the tide. 2 Some boats are small enough 

38 



Setti ng 



Figure 1 1 . Subsidence at the North 
Terminal 




Photo by Holton Associates 



to pass under the bridge. The bridge is lifted for ships to pass once or 
twice a month and a ship damages the bridge about once a year. 3 

The following use is made of Islais Creek. One ship with coconut oil from 
the Phillipines goes up Islais Creek every one or two months to the copra 
processing plant west of the Islais Creek Bridge. TNT Marine has facili- 
ties on the south side of Islais Creek west of the Third Street Bridge. 
Boats go to their facilities about once a week. 4 Westar Towboat Service 
tugboats assist ships at Pier 84 on the north side of Islais Creek, west of 
the Third Street Bridge, up to four times a month. ^ American Navigation 
pulls a ship out from Pier 84 once a year at the most.^ Harbor Tug and 
Barge assists ships at Pier 84 several times a year.? The San Francisco 
Fire Department's fireboat ties up on the south side of Islais Creek, east 
of the Third Street Bridge, during storms. ^ Islais Creek is not used by 
houseboats. 9 



39 



Setti ng 



Existing Facilities and Use: South Terminal 

The South Terminal is operated by Stevedoring Services of America. Ever- 
green Line, the world's largest container shipping company in terms of con- 
tainer capaci ty , calls at SFCT-South on the average of once every three 
days with ships from Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea. Average turn- 
around time is less than eight hours. The fastest container time at SFCT- 
South has been 44 containers/hour.^ The three berths accommodate deep 
draft vessels (38-40 feet of water at MLLW) and there is direct rail ac- 
cess. Four electric cranes transfer containers between ships and the termi- 
nal . 

Other current Port tenants include a grain terminal operated by Continental 
Grain Co., the Baker Commodities tallow works, Tidewater Sand and Gravel, 
a fertilizer/fish meal warehouse, KSFO and a recycling center. The re- 
cycling center, the fertilizer warehouse and Tidewater Sand and Gravel are 
on 30-day (month-to-month) leases. H 

Activity at the Grain Terminal varies from year to year, depending on the 
size of the harvest and the magnitude of overseas sales. An obsolete Con- 
tainer Freight Station was demolished in 1984 to provide additional con- 
tainer storage space. 

Less settlement has occurred at SFCT-South than at SFCT-North. 
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 

Land-bridged cargo takes up to eight days less travel time from Pacific Rim 
ports to the East Coast than the all-water route through the Panama Canal 
and can make use of the economies of scale associated with vessels too 



40 



Setting 



large to pass through the Panama Canal. The costs of land transport are 
more than offset by the savings associated with time saved and the use of 
larger ships. 

In October 1983, the Port of San Francisco began operation of the first on- 
dock intermodal container transfer facility in California. This interim 
facility, which eliminates the need to transfer containers from ship to 
truck before loading the containers on trains, decreased the handling time 
and cost per container and contributed to the gain in container cargo for 
the year. The arrival/departure of trains at the ICTF is constrained by 
restrictions on all mainline train movements between San Jose and San 
Francisco during peak commuter hours. 

EXISTING FACILITIES NOTES: 

1. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit No. 
36-71, §111.1. 

2. 11.5 ft. at MLLW and 5 ft. at t MHHW. 

3. David Conci, San Francisco Department of Public Works, telephone conver- 
sation of March 14, 1985. 

4. Dick McKnight, TNT Marine, telephone conversation of July 12, 1985. 

5. Mary McMillan, Westar Towboat Service, telephone conversation of July 
12, 1985. 

6. Kelley Fallon, American Navigation, telephone conversation of July 12, 
1985. 

7. Brian Lodge, Harbor Tug & Barge, telephone conversation of July 12, 
1985. 

8. Lt. William Utikol, San Francisco Fire Department, conversation of Au- 
gust 2, 1985. 

9. BCDC, Staff Report: Houseboats and Live-aboard Boats, July 1985. 

10. Wharfside, March/April, 1985, p. 9. 

11. Dr. Randall Rossi, Port of San Francisco, meeting of August 1, 1985. 



41 



Setting 



Pier 98 Biology 

Pier 98 consists of a finger of fill extending eastward into San Francisco 
Bay (see Figure 12, page 43). The north edge consists of a rocky interti- 
dal area of rip-rap, and the south side of the fill consists of bay mud 
which has been pushed up by the weight of the fill. The upland fill por- 
tion of the site supports ruderal (living in waste places near habitation) 
plants, including some native plants such as Coyote Brush ( Bacchari s) and 
toyon ( Heteromeles arbuti f ol i a ) , and has low wildlife value according to 
the biological field consultant. 1 

The upper elevations of the uplifted area on the south side support typical 
Bay salt marsh habitat, consisting of Pickle Weed ( Sal icornia ) and asso- 
ciated plant species, in fairly poor condition. 1 The lower elevations are a 
tidal mudflat habitat used by shorebirds, gulls and terns for roosting and 
foraging. Mudflats are an intertidal habitat with many bottom-dwelling 
organisms of value as a food source for birds, particularly those wintering 
in the Bay. Such mudflats are the most intensively used wildlife habitat 
type in the Bay. Because San Francisco Bay tidal mudflats are the single 
most important habitat for migrating shorebirds in California, and since 
they have historically been drastically reduced in extent due to land con- 
version, such existing areas are considered valuable by biologists. Few 
mudflats or marsh areas remain along San Francisco's shoreline. 

Sal icorni a marsh in the Bay is associated with a number of endangered or 
threatened wildlife species; it is unlikely, however, that the small and 
somewhat poor-condition Sal icornia marsh on the site currently supports any 
of these species. None of these were sighted during site inspection on July 
9, 1985, by Steve Granholm of Hoi ton Associates, biological consultant, nor 

42 



Setting 



Figure 12. Pier 98: View to the East from 
Land End of Spit 




Photo by Holton Associates 



are there records of the presence of these species on this site. 

The only federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species that are 
probable in the project area are California Brown Pelicans ( Pelecanus occi- 
dentalis cal ifornicus ) and California Least Terns ( Sterna anti 1 1 arum 
browni ). Both are on the federal and state endangered lists. 

Brown Pelicans were seen just offshore from Pier 98 during the field study 
for this EIR and presumably frequent the area from June through February. 
They probably forage in open water bordering the project area and may perch 
on piers. They do not breed in Northern California. 

Least Terns nest in other portions of San Francisco Bay, but the closest 
known site is in Alameda, well out of foraging range from the project area. 1 
It is possible that migrants forage in the project area. 

43 



Setting 



Although Salicornia marsh is present, neither California Clapper Rails 
( Rallus longerostris obsoletus ) or Salt Marsh Harvest Mice ( Reithrodontomys 
ravi ventris ) are thought to be present, as they are not known to live in or 
near San Francisco.! 

The rocky intertidal habitat along the north side and the eastern end of 
Pier 98 provide attachment for invertebrates such as barnacles, rock snails, 
mussels, limpets and shore crabs. 



PIER 98 BIOLOGY NOTE: 

1. Holton Associates, Report of July 17, 1985, available for public review 
in the project file at the Office of Environmental Review, Department 
of City Planning, 450 McAllister St. 



Transportation 

The cargo delivered to and from the terminals (about 960,000 tons at pres- 
ent) is transported mainly by trucks, although the South Terminal has rail 
service. SFCT employees generally drive to work. There are 65 permanent 
workers at SFCT-North and 40 at SFCT-South. When ships are being loaded 
and unloaded an additional 100 to 150 people may work at the terminals; 
often 50 at SFCT-North and 60 at SFCT-South. Transit use is minimal. 1 
The operator of the North Terminal has an arrangement whereby a van picks 
up ten riders arriving at BART in the Downtown area and delivers them to 
and from the Terminal. 

Along Amador Street, within the South Terminal, there are facilities that 
generate traffic, including the Grain* Terminal, a sand and gravel company, 
a recycling plant, a fertilizer transfer facility, a tallow works and a 
radio transmission tower (station KSF0). The results of a traffic count on 

44 



Setting 



Amador Street on June 28, 1985, when there was a grain ship taking on cargo 
at the Grain terminal, are shown in Table 8, page 46. 

Three transit lines serve the SFCT area: the Nos. 15, 19 and 44 lines. 
The No. 44 line terminates at Evans Avenue and Keith Street near the South 
Terminal, the No. 15 line continues up and down Third Street, and the No. 
19 line goes to the Hunters Point Shipyard between 7 AM and 7 PM and to 
Hawes Street and Innes Avenue after 7 PM. When peak hour hand counts were 
taken by the Traffic Consultant on various days in June and July 1985, none 
of the buses observed in this area appeared to be crowded. 1 

There is a designated, but not signed, bicycle route running along Third 
Street. On July 1, 1985, the Traffic Consultant observed two bicycles 
between 7:30 and 8:30 A.M. and two between 4 and 5 P.M. 

There are sidewalks on the main streets of the area except for Army Street 
east of Third Street. Pedestrian traffic is light, especially in the South 
Terminal area. 

Traffic generated in the SFCT area must approach from and leave to the west. 
Following this, most traffic, except for the small amount from San Fran- 
cisco's Mission, Twin Peaks and Sunset areas, must connect with north/south 
streets and highways to take them to their ultimate destinations. The 
east/west roadways thus serve mainly as collectors for the north/ south 
facilities, see Table 9, page 46 and Figure 13, page 47. 

There is no direct connection from Evans Avenue to the southbound freeways. 
This will probably change in the future with the construction of 1-280 
ramps on Evans Avenue. These ramps were included in the CalTrans State 
Transportation Improvement Program five year program in July 1985. The 

45 



Setting 





Table 8. Traffic Volumes on Amador 


St reet.l 




— — 


Westbound 


Eastbound 




Autos Trucks 


A nt 


1 1 Lit t\ o 


8:00-9:00 AM 


5 9 


14 


11 


4:00-5:00 PM 


24 


12 


6 


1. Counts made 


on Friday, June 28, 1985. 






Source: William Marconi, P.E., traffic engineer. 














Table 9. Road Facilities Serving Piers 


Road 


Traffic Engineer's 

Classification Traffic Lanes 


ADT 1 




East/West Facilities 






Army Street 


Arterial 


4 


13,700 2 


Evans Avenue 


Arteri al 


4 


15.000 2 


Cargo Way 


Col 1 ector 

North/South Facilities 


4 


7,100 2 


Third Street 


Arterial 


4-6 15,300 - 24,700 2 


1-280 


Freeway 


6 


55,000 3 


U.S. 101 


Freeway 


8 


211, 000 3 


1. ADT = average daily trips. 






2, Traffic counts made by the Department of Public Works, 
neering Division in June and July of 1985. 


Traffic Engi- 


3. CalTrans, " 


1981 Traffic Volumes t)n California 


State Highways," 1981. 


Source: William Marconi, P.E., traffic engineer. 







46 



Setting 



Figure 1 3. Roadways in Project Area 




47 



Setting 



present route from the South Terminal for those wishing to go south would 
be to proceed north on Third Street to 25th Street, west to Pennsylvania 
Avenue, and then south onto the southbound 1-280 on-ramp. Vehicles ap- 
proaching the terminal from the south leave 1-280 at Army Street, proceed 
east on Army Street to Third Street and then south to their destination. 

Northbound vehicles going to the East Bay can either use Third Street 
directly, 1-280 for part of their route, or proceed to U.S. 101 and head 
north. Those going to the downtown San Francisco area and points north can 
use similar routes. 

Left turns are prohibited from northbound Third Street into Army Street. 
Left turns from southbound 1-280 to the east on Army Street are now precluded 
by channelization. This may be changed in the near future. * Right turns 
are also prohibited on the red signal from Cargo Way onto northbound Third 
Street. 

As a result of a desire on the part of the community living in the Bay View 
district to minimize truck traffic on Third Street south of Evans Avenue, 
the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance limiting truck use of Third 
Street between Jamestown Avenue and Jerrold Avenue. 2 

Other characteristics of the existing transportation pattern are discussed 
in the Impacts Chapter (Transportation Impacts section) to facilitate analy- 
sis of potential transportation impacts. 



TRANSPORTATION NOTES: 

1. William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant, Report of July 27, 1985, 
available for public review in the projec file at the Department of 
City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 



48 



Setting 



2. Ordinance 500-74, 1979. 



Air Quality 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional 
monitoring network which measures the ambient concentrations of six air 
pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates 
(TSP), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). On the 
basis of the monitoring data, the Bay Area, including San Francisco, cur- 
rently is designated a non-attainment area with respect to the federal O3 
and CO standards. A three-year summary of the data collected at the BAAQMD 
monitoring station nearest the project site (about 0.35 miles northnorth- 
west at 900 23rd Street) is shown in Appendix C, p. A-39), together with 
the corresponding federal and/or state ambient air quality standards. In 
1984, there was one violation of the federal and state one-hour average 
ozone standards, one violation of the federal and state eight-hour CO stan- 
dard and five violations of the previous state 24-hour average TSP stan- 
dard; in 1983, there were one violation of the federal and state one-hour 
average ozone standards and four violations of the previous state 24-hour 
average TSP standard; and in 1982 there were one violation of the federal 
and state eight-hour CO standard, and three violations of the state 24-hour 
average TSP standard. * 

BAAQMD has conducted two CO "hotspot" monitoring programs in the Bay Area, 
including San Francisco. One CO monitoring program was conducted during 
the winter of 1979-80 and included the intersection of Washington and Bat- 
tery Streets in San Francisco, about 3.2 miles north of the site.? The high 



49 



Setti ng 



eight-hour average concentration was 10.1 ppm, which violates the 9-ppm 
state and federal standards by 1.1 ppm. The high one-hour average concen- 
tration of 15 ppm does not violate the 20-ppm state standard or the 35-ppm 
federal standard. Another CO monitoring program was conducted during the 
winter of 1980-81 and included the San Francisco intersections of Geary and 
Taylor Streets, about 2.9 miles northnorthwest of the site, and 100 Harrison 
Street at Spear, about 2.5 miles north of the site. 3 At Geary and Taylor 
the observed high eight-hour average concentration was 11.5 ppm, which vio- 
lates the standards by 2.5 ppm, and the high one-hour concentration was 15 
ppm, which does not violate standards. At 100 Harrison Street the observed 
high eight-hour and one-hour average concentrations were 7.8 ppm and 13 
ppm, respectively, which do not violate standards. These data indicate 
that locations in San Francisco near streets with high traffic volumes and 
congested flows may experience violations of the eight-hour CO standard 
under adverse meteorological conditions. 

Comparison of these data with those from other BAAQMD monitoring stations 
indicates that San Francisco's air quality is among the least degraded of 
all the developed portions of the Bay Area. Two of the three prevailing 
winds, westerly and northwesterly, blow off the Pacific Ocean and reduce 
the potential for San Francisco to receive pollutants from elsewhere in the 
region. 

San Francisco's air quality problems, primarily CO and TSP, are due largely 
to pollutant emissions from within the City. CO is a non-reactive pollutant 
with the one major source category being motor vehicles. CO concentrations 
are generally highest during periods of peak traffic congestion. TSP levels 
are relatively low near the coast, increase with distance inland, and peak 



50 



Setting 



in dry, sheltered valleys. The primary sources of TSP in San Francisco are 
demolition and construction activities and motor vehicle travel over paved 
roads. 

San Francisco contributes to air quality problems, primarily O3, a regional 
problem, in other parts of the Bay Area. O3 is not emitted directly, but 
is produced in the atmopshere over time and distance through a complex 
series of photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbon (HC) and nitrogen 
oxide (N0 X ) emissions, which are carried down-wind as the photochemical 
reaction occurs. Ozone standards are exceeded most often in the Santa 
Clara, Livermore, and Diablo Valleys, because local topography and meteoro- 
logical conditions favor the buildup of O3 and its precursors there. 

In 1982, emissions from motor vehicles were the source of 86% of the CO, 
46% of the HC, 44% of the TSP, and 56% of the N0 X in San Francisco, while 
power plant fuel combustion was the largest single source of sulfur oxides 
(S0 X ), about 33% of the total. ^ These percentages are expected to apply 
reasonably well to current conditions. 

In response to the Bay Area's O3 and CO nonattai nment designations, the 
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared and adopted the 1982 Bay Area Air 
Quality Plan, which establishes pollution control strategies to attain fed- 
eral ozone and CO standards by 1987 as required by federal law. 5 These 
strategies, based on detailed subregional emission inventories and projec- 
tions and on mathematical models of pollutant behavior, consist of station- 
ary and mobile source emission controls and transportation improvements. 
The BAAQMD, MTC and California Bureau of Automotive Repair (a state agency) 
have primary responsibility for implementation of these strategies. 

51 



Setti ng 



AIR NOTES: 

1. State standards for particulate matter changed in 1983 to concentrate 
on fine particulate matter which has been demonstrated to have health 
implications when inhaled. Concentrations standards also changed. 
There is not yet an adopted method for monitoring fine particulate 
matter. Until the State adopts a method, it is not possible to deter- 
mine what proportion of TSP in San Francisco would be subject to review 
against the new standards. 

2. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), AQMP Tech Memo 33, Summary 
of 1979/1980 Hotspot Monitoring Program, Berkeley, California, June 
1980. 

3. ABAG, AQMP Tech Memo 40, Results of the 1980/1981 Hotspot monitoring 
Program for Carbon Monoxide, Berkeley, California, January 1982. 

4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Base Year 1982 Emis- 
sions Inventory, Summary Report, San Francisco, California, November 1, 
1982. 

5. ABAG, BAAQMD and MTC, 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, Berkeley, Cali- 
fornia, December 1982. 



Plans and Policies Relevant to the Proposed Project 



The Bay Plan and Special Area Plan No. 1, BCDC 

The relationship between the proposed project and policies of the Bay Plan 
is shown in Table 10, pages 54 to 59. The 1979 amendments to the 1969 Bay 
Plan showed no land use designation on either side of Islais Creek (Plan 
Map 10). In the 1983 amendments, Plan Map 10 shows the southern waterfront 
area, including the SFCT area, as a "port priority use area." Policies of 
the Special Area Plan No. 1, San Francisco Waterfront, relevant to the 
proposed project are also given in Table 10. 



The Seaport Plan 

MTC and BCDC, assisted by a seventeen-member Seaport Planning Advisory 
Committee (representing government, ports, developers and environmental 
groups), completed eight years of work on a Bay Area Seaport Plan in 1982. 



52 



Setting 



The Seaport Plan was intended to resolve potential conflicts between port 
development and environmental quality arising from port-related Bay fill, 
dredging, etc. The Plan predicted that the majority of regional cargo 
growth in waterborne commerce would be in containerized cargo. The rela- 
tionship of the project to Seaport Plan policies is given in Table 11, 
pages 59 to 62. 

The Seaport Committee gave ratings to two San Francisco transportation 
actions judged to be of regional concern: a high priority rating! to: 
"2. Improve geometries of rail access to Piers 94/96," and a medium prior- 
ity rating^ to: "1. Monitor land use development and traffic growth in 
area surrounding Piers 94/96 [South Terminal]; undertake study as neces- 
sary." 

Land use in the southeastern portion of San Francisco is the subject of 
ongoing study by the San Francisco Department of City Planning. Traffic 
conditions in the SFCT area have been the subject of study in connection 
with this EIR and form the basis for the Transportation Impacts analysis on 
pages 67 to 94. The ICTF is designed to improve rail access to the 
South Terminal and, via the interterminal bridge, to the North Terminal 
al so. 

The Peninsula Mass Transit Study^ considered a number of alternatives 
which would affect the peninsula rail lines serving the ICTF and all of San 
Franicisco. This study found that expensive grade separations for rail and 
local commuter auto traffic would need to be considered for all alterna- 
tives, but particularly for those that would "significantly increase the 
number of trains above current levels provided on the Peninsula." Half of 

(text continues on page 63 after tables) 

53 



Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan 

and Special Area Plan No. 1. 



BAY PLAN 



FISH AND WILDLIFE 



Policy 1. "The benefits of fish and 
wildlife in the Bay should be 
insured for present and future gene- 
rations of Cal i form" ans. Therefore, 
to the greatest extent feasible, the 
remaining marshes and mudflats 
around the Bay, the remaining water 
volume and surface area of the Bay, 
and adequate fresh water inflow into 
the Bay should be maintained." 



The project addresses this Policy 
through preservation of the marsh 
and mudflat south of Pier 98 (note 
that this is the consequence of 
human action) and through the remo- 
val of existing fill on the south 
side of Islais Creek. The Phase I 
new bridge over Islais Creek would 
involve 0.5-1.1 acres of Bay fill 
which would be offset by existing 
Port fill credits. (Under the law 
anything which covers the surface of 
the water is considered fill.) The 
project would not affect fresh water 
i nfl ow to the Bay. 



WATER POLLUTION 



Policy 1. "To the greatest extent See above, 
feasible, the remaining marshes and 
mudflats around the Bay, the re- 
maining water volume and surface 
area of the Bay, and fresh water 
inflow into the Bay should be main- 
tained." 



WATER SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 



Policy 1. "The surface area of the 
Bay and the total volume of water 
should be kept as large as possible 
in order to maximize active oxygen 
interchange, vigorous circulation, 
and effective tidal action. Fil- 
ling and diking that reduce surface 
area and water volume should there- 
fore be allowed only for purposes of 
providing substantial public bene- 
fits and only if there is no rea- 
sonable alternative." 



The project would increase the sur- 
face area of the Bay exposed to air. 
Phase I would involve addition of the 
minimal area required for the inter- 
terminal bridge. Phase II would 
involve removal of fill in Islais 
Creek. 



(continued on next page) 

54 



Sett i ng 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Con't. 



Policy 2. "Water circulation in the 
Bay should be maintained, and im- 
proved as much as possible. Any 
proposed fill, dikes, or piers 
should be thoroughly evaluated to 
determine their effects upon water 
circulation and then modified as 
necessary to improve circulation or 
at least to minimize any harmful ef- 
fects." 



If the pilings for the intertermi nal 
bridge would be in Islais Creek, 
they would be designed to minimize 
effects on water circulation in the 
Islais Creek channel, see p. 129. 



MARSHES AND MUDFLATS 

Policy 3. "To offset possible addi- 
tional losses of marshes due to 
necessary filling and to augment the 
present marshes, (a) former marshes 
should be restored when possible 
through removal of existing dikes, 
(b) in areas selected on the basis 
of competent ecological study, some 
new marshes should be created 
through carefully placed lifts of 
dredged spoils, and (c) the quality 
of existing marshes should be im- 
proved by appropriate measures 
whenever possible." 



This Policy suggests that marshes 
resulting from human activity, such 
as the Pier 98 marsh may address Bay 
Plan objectives. 



PORTS 



Policy 2. "Some filling and dredging 
will be required to provide for ne- 
cessary port expansion, but any per- 
mitted fill or dredging should be in 
accord with the Seaport Plan." 



Policy 3. "Port priority use areas 
should be protected for marine ter- 
minals and directly-related ancillary 
activities such as container freight 
stations, transit sheds and other 
temporary storage, ship repairing, 



The intertermi nal bridge, 0.5 to 1.1 
acres of fill, is an integral part of 
the terminal development foreseen in 
the Seaport Plan, as indicated in 
Table 11, page 60. Filling and 
dredging would be in accord with the 
Seaport Plan, as indicated on pages 
60-61. 

The project would provide port faci- 
lities including related warehousing 
and other temporary storage, support 
transportation uses (trucking and 
rail), and customs facilities. Pub- 
lic access to the open space at Pier 



55 



(continued on next page) 



Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Con't. 



support transportation uses includ- 
ing trucking and railroad yards, 
freight forwarders, government of- 
fices related to the port activity, 
chandlers and marine services. 
Other uses, especially public ac- 
cess and public and commercial re- 
creational development, should also 
be permissible uses provided they do 
not significantly impair the effi- 
cient utilization of the port area." 



98 would not interfere with the ef 
ficient operation of the SFCT. 



RECREATION 



Policy 7. "In addition to the major 
recreational facilities indicated on 
the Plan maps, public access should 
be included wherever feasible in any 
shoreline development, as described 
in the policies for Public Access to 
the Bay [see bel ow] . . .especi al ly in 
urban areas..." 



Pier 98 would provide public access 
to the Bay in an urban area. Access 
through the working piers is not 
feasible because of the hazards of 
moving container-handling equipment, 
customs restrictions, and security. 



PUBLIC ACCESS 



Policy 1. "In addition to the pub- 
lic access to the Bay provided by 
waterfront parks, beaches, marinas, 
and fishing piers, maximum feasible 
access to and along the waterfront 
should be provided in and through 
every new development in the Bay or 
on the shoreline, whether it be for 
housing, industry, port, airport, 
public facility, or other use, ex- 
cept in cases where public access 
is clearly inconsistent with the 
project because of public safety 
considerations or significant use 
conflicts. In these cases, access 
at other locations, preferably 
near the project, should be provi- 
ded whenever feasible." 



Public access through the SFCT would 
be unsafe due to heavy vehicular 
traffic through the facility. Pub- 
lic access to the Bay would be pro- 
vided adjacent to the SFCT at Pier 
98. BCDC would have to determine 
that maximum feasible public access 
was provided in the project. 



(continued on next page) 



56 



Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Con't. 



Policy 4. "Public access improve- 
ments provided as a condition of 
any approval should be consistent 
with the project and the physical 
environment, including protection 
of natural resources, and provide 
for the public's safety and conve- 
nience. The improvements should 
be designed and built to encourage 
diverse Bay-related activities and 
movement to and along the shore- 
line, should permit barrier-free 
access for the physically handi- 
capped to the maximum feasible ex- 
tent, should include an onging 
maintenance program, and should be 
identified with appropriate signs.' 

Policy 6. "Access to the water- 
front should be provided by walk- 
ways, trails, or other appropriate 
means and connect to the nearest 
public thoroughfare where conve- 
nient parking or public transpor- 
tation may be available." 

Policy 7. Roads near the edge of 
the water should be designed as 
scenic parkways for slow-moving 
traffic. The roadway and right- 
of-way design should maintain and 
enhance visual access for the tra- 
veler, discourage through traffic, 
and provide for safe, separated, 
and improved physical access to 
and along the shore. Public 
transit use and connections to 
the shoreline should be encour- 
aged where appropriate." 

APPEARANCE, DESIGN AND VIEWS 

Policy 5. "To enhance the mari- 
time atmosphere of the Bay Area, 
ports should be designed, whenever 
feasible, to permit public access 



The Pier 98 facility would be de- 
signed to minimize biological im- 
pacts, to provide wheelchair ac- 
cess, to include a maintenance pro- 
gram and appropriate signage, see 
Mitigation Chapter, p. 130. 



The Muni No. 44 line runs one block 
from Pier 98 and the No. 19 line 
runs two blocks from it. These 
lines run on the weekend as well as 
weekdays. A small parking area 
would be provided. 



The nature of the access to Pier 98 
would not make it conducive to use 
by through traffic. Bus lines are 
nearby, see Policy 6 discussion. 
Some free, off-street parking would 
be provided for the public. 



Activities at the South Terminal 
would be visible from Pier 98. The 
removal of Shed C from the North 
Terminal would make activity at 



(continued on next page) 



57 



Setti ng 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Con't. 



and viewing of port activities by that Terminal more open and visible 
means of (a) view points (e.g. from Potrero Hill, 

piers, platforms, or towers), res- 
taurants, etc., that would not 
interfere with port operations, 
and (b) openings between buildings 
and other site designs that permit 
views from nearby roads." 



DREDGING 

Policy 1. To prevent sedimenta- 
tion resulting from dredging pro- 
jects, mud from future dredging 
should be disposed of in one of the 
following ways...(d) if no other 
alternative is feasible, dumping in 
designated parts of the Bay where 
the maximum possible amount will be 
carried out the Golden Gate on the 
ebb tides; areas should be desig- 
nated for this purpose upon appro- 
val by both the Commission and the 
Army Corps of Engineers. 



Dredge spoils would be deposited at 
a site approved by the Army Corps of 
Engineers. Disposal sites acceptable 
to the Corps are acceptable to BCDC. 
A dredge disposal permit from BCDC 
would be required. 



SPECIAL AREA PLAN NO. 1 



GENERAL POLICIES 

Policy 5. "Fill for Maritime Faci- 
lities. Any filling or dredging for 
maritime purposes should be consis- 
tent with the McAteer-Petri s Act, 
the Bay Plan, and the Seaport Plan." 

Policy 6. "Required Public Access, 
"...maximum feasible public access 
should be provided in conjunction 
with any development of existing or 
replacement piers. Public access 
should be located at ground or plat-_ 
form 1 evel . . .Publ ic access should be* 
open to the sky..." 



Fill removal and dredging would be 
consistent with relevant provisions 
of the McAteer-Petris Act, the Bay 
Plan, and the Seaport Plan. 



The public access portion of the 
project would be at ground level 
and open to the sky. Public access 
through the piers could not be pro- 
vided safely. BCDC would determine 
whether the maximum feasible public 
access was included in the project. 



(continued on the next page) 



58 



Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Con't. 



GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 



Recommendation 1. "The existing 
height and bulk limits (as of April, 
1975) of the City of San Francisco 
should not be exceeded on any water- 
front devel opment," 



The SFCT buildings would comply 
with the San Francisco height and 
bul k 1 imi ts. 



ISLAIS CREEK WEST OF THIRD STREET 

Policy 1. "The south side of Islais 
Creek Channel west of the Third 
Street Bridge should be developed 
for public access and waterfront 
recreation as a public esplanade 
and viewing area." 



The project would not affect devel- 
opment of this portion of the Islais 
Creek bank for public access and 
recreation. 



INDIA BASIN 



Policy 1. "The India Basin area 
should be developed as a major 
waterfront park in accordance with 
the Recreation and Open Space Plan 
of the City of San Francisco. 
Some fill may be needed." 

Policy 3. "Continuous public ac- 
cess should be provided along the 
west side of future Pier 98, along 
India Basin, and a public access 
connection should be provided 
between the two." 



The proposed Pier 98 spit public 
access area, on the north side of 
India Basin, would provide more open 
space than proposed for the area in 
the Open Space Plan of the City of 
San Francisco. 

Continuous public access would be 
provided along both sides of the 
existing Pier 98 spit and the open 
space could connect to other, future 
India Basin open space developments. 



Sources: BCDC, San Francisco Bay Plan, as amended September 1983, BCDC, 
Special Area Plan No. 1: San Francisco Waterfront, April 1975, as amended 
through April 1985, and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



59 



Setting 



Table 11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan. 



MARINE TERMINAL POLICIES 

Policy 1. "Major marine terminal 
developments are significant addi- 
tions to capacity or developments 
involving more than a small amount 
of Bay fill. The need for a major 
development shall be demonstrated 
in one of the following ways: 

"The development of new container 
terminal berths shall be consistent 
with the baseline demand estimates 
in Table 3 using a lead time of six 
years measured from the filing of a 
BCDC permit application. Demand 
estimates for the years not shown on 
Table 3 shall be computed by 
straight-line interpolation." 

"Major marine terminal development 
shall occur at those sites classi- 
fied as near-term and active by 
this Plan..." 



Policy 2. "Minor marine terminal 
developments are projects other 
than major developments. Minor 
developments, such as rehabilita- 
tion of existing facilities, shall 
not be subjected to a determination 
of need nor be confined to the 
active or near-term sites..." 

Policy 3. "Bay fill authorized for 
development of any marine terminal 
must be the minimum necessary to 
achieve an adequate terminal at the 
site and must minimize harmful ef- 
fects to the Bay Area, as provided 
McAteer-Petri s Act. 



The Phase I expansion of North Ter- 
minal facilities would constitute a 
development of existing terminals 
included in the existing tabulation 
in Seaport Plan Table 3. 



Phase II would involve conversion 
of a break-bulk berth to a con- 
tainer berth and creation of a new 
container berth. The new berth 
would be within the container termi- 
nal development projected by Seaport 
Plan Table 3. 



The North Terminal berths are clas- 
sified as active. One of the Phase 
II Islais Creek berths is classified 
as active and the other is classed 
for near-term development. Both 
North and South Terminals are in 
Port Priority Use Areas. 

BCDC would determine whether Phase I 
North Terminal modernization of 
existing facilities was a major or a 
minor terminal development. One of 
the Phase II berths would be a minor 
development and the other would be a 
major development subject to a deter- 
mination of need. 

The interterminal bridge over Islais 
Creek would involve the minimal fill 
required for the purpose. The bridge 
would require a fill permit. This 
bridge would result in efficient 
operation of the SFCT and minimiza- 
tion of environmental impacts of 



(continued on next page) 



60 



Setti ng 



Table 11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan, Cont. 



SFCT operation. Phase II would in- 
volve removal of 0.89 acres of fill 
The status of existing Pier 98 fill 
would be determined by BCDC. 



Policy 5. "The port priority use 
areas identified in the Maps section 
of this Plan shall be protected for 
marine terminals and directly- 
related ancillary activities. . .With- 
in these areas, the shoreline lands 
classified as active, near-term, and 
long-term by this Plan shall be re- 
stricted to marine terminal use. In- 
terim uses shall be permissible but 
must be readily displaceable when 
the area is needed for marine ter- 
minals or directly-related ancil- 
1 ary activities. . ." 

Policy 6. "To avoid unnecessary Bay 
fill and other adverse environmental 
effects, and to encourage prompt con- 
struction and full use of authorized 
facilities... 



The North and South Terminal develop- 
ments and the intertermi nal bridge 
are all marine terminal developments 
or directly related to marine termi- 
nals. The Pier 98 public access area 
is designated as a long-term develop- 
ment site. The Port would request 
BCDC to amend the Bay Plan to delete 
the marine terminal designation of 
Pier 98. 



"All permits for marine terminals 
shall contain a schedule that esta- 
blishes (a) a date prior to the com- 
mencement of construction by which 
the project sponsor must demonstrate 
the ability to finance the project; 
and (b) a reasonable timetable for 
project construction, including spe- 
cific mil estones. . ." 



Policy 9. "To use existing terminals 
fully and to lessen the cost and ad- 
verse environmental effects associa- 
ted with development to meet the 
growth of waterborne cargoes:... 

"local governments should adopt and 
implement land use policies that 



Financing for most of Phase I de- 
velopment would be provided by the 
bonds approved by San Francisco 
voters in November 1984. The Port' 
application for BCDC permits would 
include a schedule for Phase I 
with milestones and general infor- 
mation about Phase II which can- 
not be scheduled in detail at this 
time. 



The project would be predomi nantly 
on existing land. 



(continued on next page) 



61 



Setti ng 



Table 11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan, Cont. 



facilitate terminal development 
on existing dry land; and" 

"terminal operators should, where 
economically feasible, increase 
terminal productivity." 

GROUND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 

Policy 13. "The Bay Area ports, 
local governments and marine ter- 
minal operators should take steps 
to make the best possible use of 
existing ground transportation 
facilities and shall employ mea- 
sures to mitigate any significant 
adverse environmental effects of 
increased traffic from existing 
and proposed marine terminal faci- 
lities. If mitigation of traffic 
problems at marine terminal faci- 
lities is being considered as part 
of the environmental review pro- 
cess, the local government or port 
whichever has the principal res- 
ponsibility for carrying out or 
approving the project shall make 
a realistic estimate of the avail- 
able resources to fund such miti- 
gation and the likelihood that 
such measures can be implemented." 

Policy 14. "Local and regional 
transportation planning and 
funding priorities shall facili- 
tate the ef ficient movement of 
goods by rail and truck to and 
from the Bay Area ports. 



The proposed project would increase 
the productivity of the existing 
SFCT. 



The ICTF would improve use of exist- 
ing rail facilities. Traffic miti- 
gation measures included in the pro- 
posed project are discussed in the 
Mitigation Measures Chapter, pp. 122 
to 126. 



The ICTF would facilitate efficient 
rail movement of goods to and from 
the SFCT. 



Sources: MTC/BCDC, "The San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan," 1982, and 
Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



62 



Setting 



the eight alternatives evaluated assumed the dedication of a third track 
for bidirectional freight traffic. A third track would require the modifi- 
cation of at least three existing tunnels and 20-25 existing bridges, a new 
signal system, and modifications to the existing trackway, drainage and 
sidings, at a cost of $340-360 million. It was the report authors' conclu- 
sion that "it would be more desirable for the transit operating entity to 
take over the freight service from SP and contract with a short-line opera- 
tor to perform freight operation over the transit tracks, rather than pro- 
vide a separate third track for SP freight only." 

ICTF operation would increase train use of the peninsula rail route prima- 
rily during non-commuter peak hours and therefore would not have a signifi- 
cant impact on the movement of commuters by any transportation mode. 



PLAN NOTES: 

1. Medium and high priority out of three categories, "desirable," "more 
desirable," and "most desirable." 

2. Kaiser Engineers (California) Corporation and Barton-Aschman Associates, 
Inc., for MTC, 1985. 



63 



Impacts 



CHAPTER IV. IMPACTS 



IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT 

Some envi ronmental effects would either be insignificant or would be miti- 
gated through measures incorporated into the project design. These require 
no further environmental analysis and will not be addressed in the EIR. 
These effects are described briefly below. For additional information see 
the Initial Study, Appendix A, page A-l. 

San Francisco Master Plan : The project would comply with Master Plan objec- 
tives and policies regarding realization of San Francisco's maritime poten- 
tial, improvment of the efficiency of cargo handling facilities, intensifi- 
cation of maritime uses, development of container facilities, provision of 
shoreline public access and maritime viewing areas, and modernization of 
Pier 80. 

Chemical Hazards : The project would not be affected by hazardous land uses. 
An evacuation and emergency response plan would be developed by the project 
sponsor as part of the project. No change in the proportion of hazardous 
cargo handled is expected. New underground fuel tanks would conform to 
California Sher Act safety requirements and to Environmental Protection 
Agency regulations to be promulgated under the 1984 amendments to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Cultural Impacts : The project site rests entirely on Bay fill. Most of the 
fill has been placed since 1960. The probability of encountering cultural 



64 



Impacts 



resources during construction would be limited. The project sponsor has 
included a mitigation measure addressing this potential impact. 

Dredging, Spoils Disposal and Other Bay Water Quality Impacts : Dredging 
and spoils disposal would be done in accordance with requirements of the 
Army Corps of Engineers designed to mitigate impacts on Bay water quality 
to insignificance. Temporary impacts from pile driving into clean sand at 
the North Terminal would not produce significant impacts. Runoff from 
paved, impervious surfaces would not increase substantially in comparison 
to existing conditions. No detectable permanent impacts on San Francisco 
Bay water quality are anticipated. 

Energy : Increased energy consumption on-site would result from diesel and 
gasoline fuel use by new container cranes and yard equipment. Off-site 
energy use would result from additional truck, rail and ship cargo movements. 
A shift of some trips from truck to rail would result in increased energy 
efficiency per unit of cargo handled. 

Geology and Seismic Hazards : Potential problems of development on landfill 
would be mitigated to insignificance by compliance with the recommendations 
resulting from site-specific geotechnical investigations. 

Land Use Effects from Islais Creek Closure : At the time of preparation of 
the Initial Study, a fixed bridge east of the existing Third Street bridge 
was contemplated. This bridge would have closed Islais Creek to navigation 
west of the proposed new bridge and discussion of the land use impacts of 
such closure was planned for the EIR. Further consultation with the Coast 
Guard and examination of draw bridge options led to a Port staff decision 
in favor of some form of operable bridge that would preserve navigability 



65 



Impacts 



of the western portion of Islais Creek. Therefore, the discussion of 
potential land use impacts from closure has been limited to a brief discus- 
sion in the Alternatives Chapter (pages 137 and 138). 

Noi se : Maximum pile driving noise at the edge of Port property would be 93 
dBA. Other construction noise would not be expected to be heard beyond the 
boundaries of Port property. Project-generated increases in truck traffic 
would not be great enough to produce an audible change in traffic noise. 
Train noise impacts are covered starting on page 97. 

Popul ation : No housing would be displaced. Employment generation would be 
up to about 100-150 new permanent and intermittent jobs and would not 
create a substantial demand for new housing. 

Public Transit : A maximum of fewer than twenty new bus round trips per day 
would be distributed over three existing MUNI lines serving the project area. 
This increase in demand would not be noticeable. 

Utilities/Public Services : Increased demand for public services and utili- 
ties attributable to the proposed project would not require additional 
employees or expansion of existing utility facilities. Insignificant in- 
creases in utility services to Pier 98 would be associated with development 
of public facilities. The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that 
the proposed project would not create any additional demand for their res- 
pective services. No major expansion of power or communications lines 
would be necessary as a result of the project. 

Visual Impacts : Both terminals are currently active cargo handling facili- 
ties and all the proposed improvements would continue existing terminal 
operations within existing terminal boundaries in an industrial area. 

66 



Impacts 

Therefore, there would not be substantial visual impacts. Any increase in 
light due to emplacement of new light standards would not be noticeable 
from the nearest residential neighborhoods with a view of the Port, such as 
Potrero Hill and Hunters Point. 

Water Quality : No surface water or water supplies would be affected. Bay 
waters would not be substantially affected by the increase in ship calls or 
the dredging of Islais Creek. Runoff from impervious surfaces would in- 
crease, but not significantly in comparison to the existing setting. 

Wind and Shadow : Prevailing winds on the site are from the west and north- 
west with the Bay immediately downwind of the site. Modifications proposed 
for the site would not significantly alter wind currents in the area nor 
cast shadows over any public areas. 

TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 

The proposed project is expected to change the cargo mix from the present 
split of 70% local traffic/30% long distance traffic to a 30% local /70% 
long distance ratio in 1995. North Terminal cargo would increase from 
about 440,000 short tons per year of container cargo to about 690,000 
short tons in 1988 and 880,000 short tons in 1995, with an approximately 
constant 100,000 short tons per year of break-bulk cargo. South Terminal 
cargo would increase from 550,000 short tons per year of containers to about 
910,000 short tons in 1988 and 2,100,000 short tons in 1995, with an approxi- 
mately constant 15,000 short tons per year of break-bulk cargo. 

The present pattern of freight transportation by truck to East Bay rail heads 
would gradually shift to rail as more shippers made use of the improved 
rail access provided by the on-dock ICTF at the South Terminal. The follow- 

67 



Impacts 

ing discussion of the potential impacts of the shift in mode of freight 
transportation and increase in the volume of freight transported is based 
on the Port of San Francisco Southern Waterfront Improvements Traffic Study 
by William Marconi, P.E. 1 

The following assumptions have been made in estimating future transportation 
conditions with implementation of the proposed project: 

o 1985 is the base year and 1995 is the year of expected project completion 

and appearance of the full impacts, 
o Port container traffic would be as predicted by Port staff. 
° ICTF use would be as predicted by Port staff, 
o Break-bulk traffic would remain at present levels. 

o Third Street and eastbound Army Street traffic would increase at 1% a 
year in addition to loads that new developments in this area, including 
the SFCT, will place upon it. 

° India Basin Industrial Park, Bay View Industrial Triangle, and Redevelop- 
ment Agency housing at Hunters Point would be fully developed by 1995.2 

o Truck and auto traffic generated by terminals would follow present traf- 
fic patterns. 

o The street pattern would remain essentially the same except for new on- 

and off-ramps to 1-280 at Evans Avenue, 
o Permanent and temporary employment at the SFCT would increase by 56% and 

peak hour auto traffic changes would be proportional to the increase, 
o No additional openings of the Third Street Bridge over Islais Creek would 

occur, because all Islais Creek development would be east of Third 

Street. 



68 



Impacts 



Current Intersection Operating Conditions 

Table 12, page 70, shows the current volume/capacity (V/C) ratios and thus 
the operating conditions of the approaches to the three most important 
intersections on Third Street near the project under existing signal timing 
and striping conditions. The LOS (Level of Service, see page A-38) for 
each approach to an intersection is not the same if the signal timing has 
not been adjusted to equalize traffic delay on the different approaches. 
This is true for all intersections shown in Table 12. All approaches to 
the intersections on Table 12 except one, eastbound Army Street, operate at 
Level of Service C or better, indicating stable operation. Some restric- 
tion is implied by the Level of Service of C on westbound Cargo Way and 
westbound Evans Avenue in the PM peak period. Eastbound Army Street oper- 
ates at Service Level F in the A.M. peak hour, implying jammed conditions. 

The calculation of V/C ratios takes into consideration the number of buses 
and trucks, bus stops, turning movements, parking, pedestrian activity and 
traffic lane width. 

Machine traffic counts were made by staff of the San Francisco Department 
of Public Works Traffic Engineering Division on weekdays between June 20 
and July 2, 1985. Hand counts were made by the Traffic Consultant 1 on 
weekdays between June 14 and July 1, 1985. 

South Terminal traffic generation was found to follow the pattern of the 
North Terminal given in the 1980 Marine Terminal Traffic Generation Manual, 
which developed relationships between port revenue tonnage and traffic 
generation, 3 as shown in Table 13, page 70. Therefore, the auto/truck 
ratios found for the South Terminal have been used in estimating future 
traffic patterns for the entire SFCT. 

69 



Impacts 



Table 12. 1985 V/C Ratios at Approaches to Critical Signalized 
Intersections Near SFCT. (Peak Directions) 1 





Intersection 




A.M. 


Peak 






P.M. 


Peak 






High 2 LOS 3 


Low 2 


LOS 


High 2 


LOS 


Low 2 


LOS 


3rd 


Street and Cargo Way 


0.55 


A 


0.26 


A 


0.78 


C 


0.38 


A 


3rd 


Street and Evans Ave. 


0.63 


B 


0.25 


A 


0.79 


c 


0.44 


A 


3rd 


and Army Streets 


1.00 


F 


0.63 


B 


0.63 


B 


0.47 


A 



Is Based on counts made on weekdays in the period June 14 to July 1, 1985. 

2. Note that this table gives the LOS for the approaches to each intersec- 
tion that have the best and worst existing conditions and that the typical 
LOS for each intersection as a whole is intermediate between the High and 
Low values given. There is a different LOS for each approach because 
existing traffic signal timing has not been adjusted to equalize traffic 
delay on the different approaches to some of the intersections. For ex- 
ample, in the A.M. peak at Third and Army Sts., northbound Third St. oper- 
ates at LOS B and eastbound Army St. at F. If nine seconds of green time 
were shifted from Third St. to Army St., both approaches would be at LOS C. 

3. LOS = Level of Service, see Appendix B, page A-38, for definitions. 
Source: William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant. 



Table 13. Vehicle Use of Terminals by Type of Vehicle 



Vehicles 



Consultant Study 
of San Francisco 
South Terminal 1 



Marine Terminal Traffic 
Generation Manual : San 
Francisco North Terminal 2 



Trucks 

Autos, Pick-ups, and 
Service Vehicles 



62% 
38% 



65% 
35% 



1. Gate counts by William Marconi, P.E., on Thursday, June 6, Friday, June 
7, Friday, June 21, and Monday, June 24, 1985. 

2. Wilbur Smith and Associates (revised by MTC staff), Marine Terminal 
Traffic Generation Manual, MTC/BCDC, 1980. 



70 



Impacts 



Current Queuing Conditions 

Trucks waiting to enter the SFCT queue at the Terminal entrances. Up to 
12 trucks have been observed waiting on Army Street (on Port property) at 
the North Terminal and 18 at the South Terminal. The queuing at the North 
Terminal restricts access to businesses located on Army Street immediately 
west of the gate. The South Terminal queuing causes no problem, because 
the waiting occurs on the portion of Jennings Street that is entirely de- 
voted to serving Port operations. 

The origin and destination percentages used in predicting the distribution 
of new Terminal-associated trips to various routes are given in Table 14, 
page 72. 

SFCT-Generated Traffic 

The North Terminal use of the ICTF would go from in 1985 to almost 34,000 
trips per year in 1995. Note that terminal traffic is generally analyzed 
on an annual basis because of the wide daily ariation in traffic depending 
on the number of ships berthed at the SFCT. Ne • trips between the North 
Terminal (trucks and port packers) and the ICTF would not have an impact 
on the street system if an interterminal br id i were built because they 
would remain within the SFCT. 

Table 15, page 72, compares annual vehicular traffic generated on City 
streets by the North Terminal on City streets now and in 1995, based on the 
Marine Terminal Generation Manual, auto/truck ratios for the South Termi- 
nal, estimates of future employment, and Port staff estimates of future 
cargo movement. 



71 



Impacts 



Table 14. Trip Distribution of Terminal Traffic 



Destinations 



Type of 
Vehicle 



Downtown 

South of West of San Francisco 

Terminals Terminals and Points North East Bay 



Autos 22% 24% 23% 31% 

Trucks 44% 6% 1% 49% 



Source: Wilbur Smith & Associates, "Ground Access Analysis," 1980, cited in DKS 
Associates, "Traffic Analysis for the Proposed San Francisco Container 
Terminal ," 1983, p. 18. 



Table 15. North Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation 



Trips 

1985 1995 



Container Vessels 

Trucks 95,600 126,500 

Autos 58,100 87,500 

Break-Bulk Vessels 

Trucks 16,300 16,300 

Autos 11,500 11,500 

Source: Port Commission staff and William Marconi, P.E., July 1985. 



72 



Impacts 



In 1984, 823,000 metric revenue tons of cargo in containers and 20,000 mrt 
of break-bulk cargo were handled at the South Terminal. With the construc- 
tion of the ICTF, the Port staff expects a great increase in container 
traffic at the South Terminal, while break-bulk would at most remain at the 
current 1 evel . 

The South Terminal use of the ICTF would increase in Phase I from 4,260 
internal trips per year in 1985 to 127,300 trips in 1995. 

Phase II calls for the construction of two new berths, Piers 90 and 92, on 
the south side of Islais Creek Channel. This would increase the capacity of 
the South Terminal and the train and truck traffic generation. This phase 
would supplant the Grain Terminal, the Tidewater Sand and Gravel operation, 
the fertilizer/fish meal warehouse, the Baker Commodities tallow works and 
the recycling center on Amador Street. The loss of their traffic contribu- 
tion would counterbalance to some extent the added traffic generated by 
Phase II berth development. The rate of increase in container traffic would 
determine the timing of the Phase II expansion. 

A Container Freight Station (CFS) may be included in the South Terminal 
development. No projections for use of a SFCT-South CFS are available, so 
the Oakland CFS of American President Lines has been used as a model. 4 The 
Oakland CFS generated about 83 truck and 30 automobile trips per day in 
June 1985. A similar trip generation rate has been assumed for the South 
Terminal CFS in 1995. 

Table 16, page 74, shows the estimated vehicular traffic that would be gen- 
erated in 1995 with implementation of Phase II. Table 17, page 74, and 
Table 18, page 75, show the effect of SFCT changes on 1995 traffic volumes. 



73 



Impacts 



Table 16. South Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation. 



Trips/year 

1995 

1985 1995 With Phase II 



Container Vessels 



Trucks 




116,300 


206,700 413,400 


Autos 




70,600 


130,000 260,000 


Break-Bulk Vessels 








Trucks 




3,200 


3,200 3,200 


Autos 




2,200 


2,200 2,200 


Source: William Marconi, P 


,E. 






Table 17. Added 


Peak Hour 


Traffic Load 


Caused by Phase I Port Expansion. 






vph (peak direction) 




A.M. Peak 


P.M. Peak 


Street 


Trucks 


% In- 
crease 
Autos (PCE)* 


% In- 
crease 

Trucks Autos (PCE)* 


3rd Street NB 
(at Army St.) 


28 


13 4.9 




Evans Avenue EB 
(at 3rd St.) 


46 


29 21.0 




Evans Avenue WB 
(at 3rd St.) 






19 21 4.9 


Cargo Way WB 
(at 3rd St.) 


28 


13 29.7 


20 24 15.7 


Army Street EB 
(at 3rd St.) 


20 


15 4.6 




Army Street WB 
(at 3rd St.) 






12 22 11.2 



* Passenger Car Equivalents over 1995 Base Conditions 

NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



74 



Impacts 



Table 18. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Phase II Port Expansion. 



Peak Direction A.M. Peak vph 1 

Street % In- 

Trucks Autos crease 
(PCE) 2 



3rd Street NB 65 32 14 

(at Army St.) 

3rd Street NB 28 6 6 

(at Cargo Way) 

3rd Street SB, Left Turn 36 23 57 

(at Cargo Way) 

Evans Avenue EB 28 6 12 

(at 3rd St.) 

Cargo Way WB 65 32 70 

(at 3rd St.) 

Army Street EB 36 23 * 

(at 3rd St.) 



NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound 

1. V/C ratios in the P.M. peak period would not be affected by Phase II 
generated traffic because movements into and out of SFCT-South would coin- 
cide with the off peak direction of travel. For example, all exiting move- 
ments must travel north on Third Street and in the PM peak this is a non- 
critical direction of travel. AM peak = 8-9 AM. 

2. Passenger Car Equivalents over 1995 Base Conditions, increase in SFCT 
contribution to traffic. 

* All of these vehicles would be in the right turn lane which is not one 
of the critical lanes on this approach and therefore does not enter into 
the analysis. 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



75 



Impacts 



The analysis conservatively assumes that all Port traffic would be concen- 
trated during one working shift rather than being spread over two or more 
shi fts. 

If the interterminal bridge were not built, an additional 63,600 truck 
trips would be generated annually between the North Terminal and the ICTF, 
and additional traffic would be superimposed on the Third and Army Streets 
and Third Street and Cargo Way Intersections, as shown in Table 19, page 
77. 

Queuing After Project Implementation 

Assuming that existing work rules govern the queueing and no gate changes 
would be made, the queueing at the North Terminal would be lengthened by in- 
creased traffic loads in 1995. A 30% increase of container traffic carried 
by trucks would presumably increase queue lengths by a similar amount. 
Potential measures to relieve the situation are described under Mitigation, 
pages 124 and 125. 

The situation at the South Terminal in 1995 whould be better than it is 
today. Construction of a new entranceway to serve Pier 94 and the ICTF 
would split the entering traffic into two locations, thereby effectively 
halving the traffic load per entrance. In addition, the gate locations for 
the ICTF and Pier 94 would be located deeper within Port property, provid- 
ing queueing length for more trucks. 

Freeway Impacts 

SFCT traffic contributions to the existing Evans Avenue and Pennsylvania 
Avenue freeway on-ramps and to future off-ramps are shown in Table 20, page 
77. Since the ramps would operate well below their capacity, the new SFCT 

■ 

76 



Impacts 



Table 19. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Deletion of 

Interterminal Bridge. 



Street 



3rd Street NB 
(at Army St.) 



A.M. Peak 
8-9 AM 



Trucks 



23 



% In- 
crease 
(PCE) 



P.M. Peak 
4-5 PM 



Trucks 



% In- 
crease 
(PCE) 



3rd Street SB, Left Turn 
(at Cargo Way) 



23 



28 



Army Street WB 
(at 3rd St.) 



16 



Cargo Way WB 
(at 3rd St.) 



23 



21 



10 



Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



Table 20. 1995 Traffic Estimates for 1-280 Ramps. 







AM Peak 


Contributed 


PM Peak 


Contributed 


Ramp 


Capacity 


Hour 


by Port Ex- 


Hour 


by Port Ex- 






Without 


pansion, 


Wi thout 


pansion, 






Project 


Phase I & II 


Project 


Phase I & II 






7-8 AM 




4:30-5:30 




Evans Ave. 












Off-Ramp, NB 


1900 1 


275 


81 














Army St. 












Off-Ramp NB 




275 


12 






Evans Ave. 


1200 










On-Ramp, SB 








260 


27 


Pennsyl vania 


1500 










Ave. On-Ramp, SB 








970 


40 


NB = Northbound, SB 


= Southbound 











1. The Evans and Army off-ramps will feed together. 

Source: Lincoln Chu, Chief, Project Development A Branch, CalTrans, letter 
to Scott Shoaf, Traffic Engineering Division, San Francisco Department of 
Public Works, of March 4, 1985, and William Marconi, P.E. 



77 



Impacts 



traffic would not affect their operation. 

Table 21, page 79, shows 1995 freeway volumes. At Evans Avenue, the SFCT 
changes would add 1.7% to northbound 1-280 traffic during the A.M. peak and 
1.2% to southbound traffic in the P.M. peak. This would not cause freeway 
capacity to be exceeded but the freeway would be so close to capacity that 
even small increments of traffic could noticeably increase vehicle delay. 
1-280 and US 101 north of the county line are expected to exceed capacity 
at peak hour in 1995 with or without the proposed project. The added delay 
on 1-280 at the county line has not been determined. The percentage in- 
creases would be less than 0.4% and 0.3% respectively. Although this would 
be a small increase, with the freeway at capacity at the county line the 
new trips would either have to use City streets for their peak hour trips, 
force an equivalent number of other freeway users to seek non- freeway 
routes, or prolong the time of rush hour capacity flows. The same condi- 
tion would hold true on U.S. 101 at the county line. 

The streets available to carry overflow traffic from the freeways are Bay- 
shore Blvd., Mission Street, San Jose Avenue, Junipero Serra Blvd., Lake 
Merced Blvd. and Skyline Blvd. These streets have a total of 16 lanes in 
each direction, with an estimated capacity of 10,700 vehicles per direction 
(capacity estimate by the Traffic Consultant). Nineteen ninety-five traffic 
estimates for these and complete current traffic counts are not available 
for these streets. Using available data, the Traffic Consultant estimates 
that there are now 6000 to 7000 southbound vehicles using these streets in 
the PM peak hour. Assuming a ten percent traffic growth by 1995, the 
traffic volumes would be in the range "of 6600 to 7700 vph. This would 
indicate that the street system could carry freeway overflow in the PM peak 

78 



Impacts 



Table 21. Estimated 1995 Freeway Volumes (Demand). 



Freeway 



AM Peak 

hour 
Demand 

7-8 



Maximum 
Capacity^ 



Traffic PM Peak 
Phases hour Maximum 
I + II Demand Capacity* 
4:30-5:30 



Traffic 
Phases 
I + II 



1-280 SB, South 
of Evans Ave. 



5500 5700 



67 



1-280 NB, South 
of Evans Ave. 



5500 6000 



93 



1-280 SB, North 
of County Line 

1-280 NB, North 
of County Line 

U.S. 101 SB, North 
of County Line 

U.S. 101 NB, North 
of County Line 



8300 8000 



9000 8000 



8300 2 8000 



31 



9000 3 8000 



62 



22 



45 



NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. 

1. Based on 2000 vehicles per hour per lane, as assumed in the Downtown Plan 
EIR (DTP EIR). 

2. This estimate is in agreement with the DTP EIR, p. IV.E.35. 

3. This estimate, which is about 9% greater than estimates in the DTP EIR, is 
based on 1985 estimates from CalTrans, issued since certification of the DTP 
EIR. The difference is within the probable error of the estimation methods. 
Note that DTP EIR estimates included Port traffic. 

Sources: CalTrans "Route Concept Report for U.S. 101" (1985 unpublished draft, 
used with CalTrans permission), and "Route Concept Report for 1-280" (1985 unpub- 
lished draft, used with CalTrans permission). 



79 



Impacts 



hour. Morning peak hour conditions are usually less crowded. 
Cumulative Traffic Impact Analysis 

The area surrounding the SFCT is mostly developed with warehouses and fac- 
tories. Therefore, new added traffic generation from these areas would not 
be expected unless there were land use changes. Part of India Basin Indus- 
trial Park and land for 210 units of housing on the central and north sides 
of the Hunters Point Hill remain to be developed. There are also about 3.4 
acres in the Bay View Industrial Triangle that are either unoccupied or 
occupied by low-intensity development. 

The estimated traffic that would be generated by development of this land 
is shown in Table 22, page 81. The location of the generators and the 
potential origins and destinations of traffic bound to and from the genera- 
tors were examined. The traffic was then assigned to various roadways as 
shown in Table 23, page 81. 

A good part of these new trips would not have an impact on streets in their 
area because the market area of the largest new generator, the retail cen- 
ter, located at Third Street and Evans Avenue, would be almost entirely 
south and east of the India Basin Industrial Park. Also the street pattern 
and topography of the Hunters Point Redevelopment Area induces traffic to 
use streets south of the Industrial Park rather than Evans Avenue or Cargo 
Way (see Fig. 14, page 90). 

The Navy's decision to base part of the USS Missouri battlegroup in the Bay 
Area would cause changes in the project area if the plan is implemented. 
Deputy Mayor James Lazarus has stated 5 -that four frigates and two mine- 
sweepers manned by reserve units would be based at Hunters Point. In addi- 

80 



Impacts 



Table 22. Traffic Generation From New Generators 1995 



Generator 



India Basin 
Industrial Park 

Retail Center - 
3rd and Evans 

Retail 

Office 

Bay View 

Industrial 

Triangle 

Hunters Point 
Housing 

TOTAL 



Size Daily Genera- 
tion Rate* 



5.5 acres 68.1/acre 



^ ADT 2 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak 
(Two-Way) (Two-Way) (Two-Way) 



380 



50,000 sq.ft. 82.0/1000 sq.ft. 4100 
45,000 sq.ft. 17.7/1000 sq.ft. 800 



3.4 acres 68.1/acre 
210 units 4.3/unit 



230 



900 



34 



135 
113 



23 



90 



40 



330 
126 



24 



90 



6410 



395 



610 



1. Vehicle trip ends, calculated from ITE Traffic Generation Manual (Third Edi 
tion), 1982, §§ 100, 200, 700 and 800. 

2. ADT = average daily trips. 



Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



Table 23. 1995 Peak Hour Traffic Load Added 
by New Land Development 
(Peak Direction) Vehicles Per Hour 1 



Street Approach 

3rd Street NB (at Evans Avenue) 
3rd Street NB (at Army Street) 
3rd Street SB (at Cargo Way) 
3rd Street SB (at Evans Avenue) 
Evans Avenue EB (at 3rd Street) 
Evans Avenue WB (at 3rd Street) 
Cargo Way WB (at 3rd Street) 



A.M. Peak 



P.M. Peak 



32 
38 



45 
3 



43 
41 

41 

3 



NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound 

1. .Vehicle trip ends. Calculations based on ITE Trip Generation Manual (Third 

Edition), 1982. 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



81 



Impacts 



tion, he said that the Navy expects 1500 to 2000 units of new housing to be 
built within the shipyard. These, together with added repair work at the 
shipyard generated by the presence of new naval vessels, would generate new 
traffic. 

How much this would add to existing shipyard traffic of 560 vehicles in the 
P.M. peak cannot be determined at this time because of the preliminary state 
of the Navy's plans. The proposed Hunters Point housing would probably be 
for Navy personnel, if the housing were built in the shipyard area as is 
now being considered. Certain mitigating factors could lessen the poten- 
tial transportation impacts from this proposal if workers were to live in 
areas outside the shipyard. The Navy has proposed direct ferry service 
from Treasure Island to Hunters Point, which could divert some auto trips 
from City streets to the ferry. 5 Improved transit service to Hunters Point 
would also eliminate some auto trips. The shipyard's south gate could be 
opened for exiting traffic as it has been in the past. This would divide 
the traffic load over two routes. The Navy proposal would be subject to 
separate environmental review under Federal and State law. 

New Evans Avenue ramps to 1-280 are in the CalTrans 5-year State Transpor- 
tation Improvement Program (STIP). These ramps would serve traffic coming 
from and going to the south on 1-280. They essentially duplicate existing 
ramps at Army Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, so their main effect on the 
project area would be to attract traffic from the South Terminal and the 
Industrial Park from Cargo Way to Evans Avenue. Their effect has been 
taken into consideration in determining 1995 V/C ratios. 

In developing the ICTF the Port proposes to eliminate the intersection of 
Amador Street and Cargo Way and to shift the entrance and exit to Amador 

82 



Impacts 



west to the intersection of Cargo Way and Third Street. Inside the South 
Terminal Amador would be connected to a loop roadway that would connect not 
only to the ICTF but also to the Pier 94/96 gate at Cargo Way and the ICTF 
as an alternative means of egress from the area. 

The new entrance/ exit would change Cargo Way and Third Street from a four- 
way to a five-way intersection. Since traffic leaving the terminal would 
be limited to a right turn movement only from Cargo Way onto northbound 
Third Street, and since this movement could take place at the same time as 
the left turn movement from southbound Third Street onto Cargo Way, no new 
phases would have to be added to the traffic signal. As a result, traffic 
operation at this location would not be affected. 

Several years ago proposals were considered for both light rail service and 
a widening of the median island on Third Street. It was concluded that the 
effects of these changes on traffic between Army Street and Evans Avenue 
would be severe. Since the probability of these changes occurring in the 
next ten years is low, their effect has not been considered in this EIR. 
Even if a decision were made to change median islands on Third Street, 
islands could be eliminated between Army Street and Evans Avenue. 

Predicted base-line 1995 volume/capacity ratios for the key intersections 
are shown in Tables 24, page 84, and 25, page 86. They include new land 
development and the new Evans Avenue ramps but not the effects of Port 
expansion which are considered later. Table 24 shows the ratios under 
existing striping and signal timing patterns and Table 25 the ratios which 
could be obtained with optimum striping and signal timing. 6 The latter 
would result in similar V/C ratios in all directions. 



83 



Impacts 



Table 24. Baseline 1995 V/C Ratios: 
Peak Directions — Existing 1985 Signal Timing and 
Striping Conditions: No Added Port Traffic 



Intersection A.M. Peak 1 LOS P.M. Peak 2 LOS 



3rd Street and Cargo Way 

3rd Street NB 3 0.44 A 

Cargo Way WB 0.25 A 

3rd Street SB 0.44 A 

Cargo Way WB 0.37 A 
3rd Street and Evans Avenue 

3rd Street NB 0.29 A 

Evans Avenue EB 0.52 A 

3rd Street SB 0.50 A 

Evans Avenue WB 0.92 E 
3rd and Army Streets 

3rd Street NB 0.67 B 

Army Street EB 1.10 F 

3rd Street NB 0.65 B 

3rd Street SB 0.58 A 

Army Street WB 0.47 A 



NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound 
1. 8-9 A.M. 2. 4-5 P.M. 
Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



84 



Impacts 



Most intersections would operate in a stable mode with no change in signal 
timing, with the exception of the westbound Evans Avenue approach in the 
evening peak hour and the eastbound Army Street approach in the morning 
peak hour. By signal timing adjustments and minor striping changes, all 
could be brought into a stable operating range. 

When the new ICTF-generated traffic volumes are translated into added 
traffic loads, the volume/capacity ratios shown in Table 26, page 86, would 
develop at the key intersections. This assumes optimization of traffic 
striping and signal timing, which are planned by the Department of Public 
Works. 6 

The additional traffic that Phase I would add to the streets in the peak 
hours is reflected in the small change in V/C ratios. The worst intersec- 
tion would be Third and Army Streets in the morning peak hour, and that 
would remain at level of Service C, a stable operation, or better. 

If Phase II were completed, another increment of traffic would be added and 
V/C ratios would be affected as shown in Table 27, page 87. Even if the 
interterminal bridge were not built, operating conditions would change 
little, as shown in Table 27, page 87. 

Even with these conservative scenarios, all intersections would remain with- 
in a stable range although Third and Army Streets in the morning peak would 
be close to Level of Service D, a situation approaching unstable flow. 

Construction Impacts 

Cumulative construction impacts were analyzed for the SFCT, the Griffith 
Street Clean Water Project, the India Basin Redevelopment projects, and the 
I-280/Evans Avenue ramps. Anticipated construction schedules for these pro- 

85 



Impacts 



Table 

Peak Directions 
No 


25. 1995 V/C Ratios: 

— Timing and Striping Optimized 

Added Port Traffic 




Intersection 


A.M. Peak 1 LOS 


P.M. Peak 2 


LOS 


3rd Street and Cargo Way 


0.34 A 


0.43 


A 


3rd Street and Evans Avenue 


0.35 A 


0.62 


B 


3rd and Army Streets 


0.70 B 


0.48 3 


A 



1. 8-9 A.M. 2. 4-5 P.M. 

3. This would be 0.57 A without the optimization currently planned by the 
Department of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 2a. 

Source: William Marconi, PE. 



Table 26. Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: Phase I Port Traffic Included. 1 



A.M. Peak P.M. Peak 



With LOS 3 Without LOS With LOS Without LOS 
IT Bridge 2 IT Bridge IT Bridge IT Bridge 



3rd Street and 0.36 A 0.38 A 0.44 A 0.44 A 

Cargo Way 

3rd Street and 0.39 A 0.39 A 0.64 B 0.64 B 

Evans Way 

3rd Street and 0.73 C 0.74 C 0.49 4 A 0.51 5 A 

Army St. 



1. Assuming optimization of signal timing and lane marking. 

2. IT = Intertermi nal . 

3. LOS = Level of Service. 

4. This would be 0.57 A without the optimization currently planned by the 
Department of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4. 

5. This would be 0.60 B without the optimization currently planned by the 
Department of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4. 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



86 



Inter- 
Section 



Impacts 



Table 27. Effect of Interterminal Bridge on Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: 
Port Traffic Phases I and II Included. 1 







A.M. 


Peak 






P.M. 


Peak 




inter- 
section 


With 
IT Bridge^ 


2 

L0S- 


Wi thout 
IT Bridge 


LOS 


With 
IT Bridge 


LOS 


Wi thout 
IT Bridge 


LOS 


3rd Street and 
Cargo Way 


0.45 


A 


0.49 


A 


0.47 


A 


0.49 


A 


3rd Street and 
Evans Avenue 


0.42 


A 


0.48 


A 


0.64 


B 


0.64 


B 


3rd Street and 
Army Street 


0.78 


C 


0.78 


C 


0.49 4 


A 


0.51 


A5 



1. Assuming optimization of signal timing and striping. 

2. IT = Intertermi nal . 

3. LOS = Level of Service. 

4. This would be 0.57 A without the changes currently planned by the Depart- 
ment of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4. 

5. This would be 0.60 B without the changes currently planned by the Depart- 
ment of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4. 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



jects are shown in Table 28, page 88. The peak hours selected for analysis 
were 7-8 AM and 4-5 PM, because the traffic impacts of construction workers 
going to and from work would be greatest during these hours. These do not 
necessarily coincide with the overall commute peaks. 



The cumulative peak construction period would be from August to November 
1986. The intersections of Army and Third Streets and Evans Avenue and 
Third Street would be most affected by construction traffic. The V/C 
ratios for construction and non-construction traffic at these intersections 
for the August-November 1986 period are shown in Table 29, page 88. 



87 



Impacts 



Table 28. Construction Schedule for Islais Creek Area 
Construction Projects 



Project 



1986 



1987 



JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND 



I.C.T.F. 

North Terminal 
Modernization 

Interterminal Bridge 

Griffith St. Clean 
Water Project 

Redevel opment 
Parcel "D" 

Redevel opment 
Parcels "B,C" 

Redevel opment 
Parcel "K" 




Sources: Ron Zimmer, Sverdrup & Parcel; Robert Badgely, Construction Ma- 
nagement Division, San Francisco Bureau of Engineering; Gene Blazick, 
Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 1 er; Marjorie Cummings, San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency; Scott Shoaf, Traffic Engineering Division, S.F. Dept. of Public 
Works; and William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant. 

Table 29. Cumulative Traffic Impacts During Peak Construction Period of 
August - November 1986 (construction + non-construction traffic): 

V/C Ratios with Traffic Striping and Signal Timing Optimized 





AM PEAK 




PM PEAK 




I ntersecti on 


V/C Ratio 


LOS 


V/C Ratio 


LOS 


3rd & Army Sts 


0.78 


C 


0.52 


A 


3rd St. & Evans 
Avenue 


0.40 


A 

• 


0.59 


A 



Source: William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant, 



88 



Impacts 



With construction traffic, Third and Army would operate at Level of Service 
C in the AM peak period and at A in the PM peak period. Third and Evans 
would operate at LOS A during AM and PM peaks. This analysis assumes opti- 
mization of signal timing and traffic striping. 

Rail road Operations 

The ICTF would handle trains carrying cargo in and out of the Port area to 
and from the Bayshore train yard just south of the County line in Brisbane, 
where longer, unit trains would be made up for dispatch across the country 
(see Figure 14, page 90, for location of the Bayshore yard). The railroad 
consultant to the Port, Sverdrup & Parcel (Ron Zimmer, Project Manager), 
estimates that under full operation, upon completion of Phases I and II, 
there would be as many as six twenty-five car train trips (some in and some 
out) between 7 P.M. and 6 A.M. daily. Each train would be up to a half 
mile long and operate at five miles per hour (mph) under highest volume 
conditions. A more probable case would be four train trips (two in and two 
out) in this night time period. In the 9 A.M. to 3 P.M. period, under peak 
volume conditions, there could be two trains in and two out. 

When operating, the trains would block thoroughfares such as Third Street 
and Evans Avenue. At a speed of five mph, each crossing would block a 
street for up to six minutes, depending on the length of the train. The 
blockage time per affected street vehicle would vary from zero to six min- 
utes and would average three minutes. The maximum probable delay is shown 
in Table 30, page 93. 

The potential effect of rail delays on movement of emergency vehicles in 
San Francisco is discussed starting on page 95. No conflict between unit 
trains and commuter trains is anticipated south of the Bayshore train yard, 

89 



Impacts 



Figure 14. Location of Bayshore Train Yard 




90 



Impacts 



because the unit trains would operate in between commuter trains and would 
not run at peak commuter traffic times. 7 Under conditions of high ICTF 
use, perhaps once a week it would be desirable to dispatch 10- to 25-car 
trains between the Bayshore yard and the ICTF in the daytime. The trains 
would occupy the main line track for about ten minutes. 

If operation of the SP commuter trains were to be taken over by a new multi- 
component agency, as considered in the Peninsula Mass Transit Study it is 
possible that the operator would want to operate all day with a 15 minute 
headway between two consecutive passenger trains. This headway could have 
to be lengthened to permit daytime unit train passage. If this were not 
permitted, the efficiency of the ICTF operation could be impaired. 7 

The Postal Service has indicated that although increased train movements 
would delay some mail delivery trips, this delay would be short and infre- 
quent enough not to pose a problem. 9 The unit trains could impact vehicular 
traffic at Peninsula at-grade crossings. However, most of the unit trains 
would travel between midnight and 6 AM when traffic is light. The trains 
would move at passenger train speed, about 50 miles per hour, and would 
occupy each intersection for about one and a quarter minutes. 

The Western Pacific Railroad now provides service from the North Terminal 
to the South Terminal through a complicated series of switching arrange- 
ments involving several rail lines. 10 It also provides service to the east 
by means of a rail/ferry terminal near the Santa Fe China Basin rail yard. 
Western Pacific filed for abandonment of this service, then withdrew the 
application. If the abandonment application should be revived, either an 
agreement to provide some kind of connecting service to the main line track 
or a connection to the main line track via the proposed interterminal 

91 



Impacts 



bridge and the Cargo Way track would be needed. The second option, the 
interterminal bridge connected to the Arthur Avenue track, would be prefer- 
able since it would eliminate complicated switching operations. 

On-Street Parking 

There are no commercial off-street parking facilities in the vicinity of 
the SFCT; the Terminals and Port tenants have provided private parking. 
The on-street demand is largely for all-day parking. Streets around the 
North Terminal are approaching their parking capacity, but there is no pro- 
blem at the South Terminal, as shown in Table 31, page 93. 

Project-related new jobs at the SFCT would increase the demand for on-street 
parking. If no employees shifted to transit or van pools, and no additional 
off-street parking were incorporated into the SFCT, a peak demand for 65 
additional spaces would be generated at the North Terminal and 43 additional 
spaces at the South Terminal (based on 1.3 persons per car). 

This increase would present no problem at the South Terminal, since the 
July 1985 survey showed 278 empty on-street spaces within 2000 feet of the 
Terminal gate and 101 empty on-street spaces at 11:00 AM within 1000 feet of 
the Terminal gate (occupancy of 22%). The predicted demand would exceed 
the parking supply in the North Terminal since the Traffic Consultant's 
survey showed 24 empty spaces within 2000 feet and 6 empty spaces within 
1000 feet of the North Terminal Gate (85% occupancy). If the proposal to 
optimize street capacity at Third and Army Streets^ by changing lane strip- 
ing is adopted, approximately 18 on-street parking spaces would be lost. 
Parking for 10 to 20 anticipated new permanent employees would be provided 
on-site at the North Terminal. H The vehicles for which there would be no 



92 



Impacts 



Table 30. Vehicular Delay Caused by ICTF Trains. 



Average 6- Maximum Total Daily 
Street Time Minute Vehicular Number of Delay in 

Volume Blockages Vehicle-Hours^- 



Third Street 


9 


A.M. -3 


P.M. 


114 


4 


23 


Third Street 


7 


P.M. -6 


A.M. 


21 


6 


6 


Evans Avenue 


9 


A.M. -3 


P.M. 


77 


4 


14 


Evans Avenue 


7 


P.M. -6 


A.M. 


26 


12 


16 


Jerrold Ave. 


9 


A.M. -3 


P.M. 


50 Est. 2 


4 


10 


Jerrold Ave. 


7 


P.M. -6 


A.M. 


5 Est. 2 


12 


3 


Cargo Way 


9 


A.M. -3 


P.M. 


36 


4 


7 


Cargo Way 


7 


P.M. -6 


A.M. 


17 


12 


10 










HIGHEST TOTAL 


DAILY DELAY 


96 



1. Average 6-minute traffic flow during the given time period x average 
delay of 3 minutes x number of blockages 

2. Jerrold Ave. source counts were from the early 1970s. They were in- 
creased based on the Traffic Consultant's judgement and for that reason 
are labelled Est. 



Source: William Marconi, P.E. 





Table 31. On-Street Parking Conditions 


Terminal 


On-Street Spaces 
Within 2000 Feet 


Empty On-Street 
Spaces at 11:00 A.M. 


Percent 
Occupancy 


North Terminal 


185 


24 


87 


South Terminal 


320 


278 


13 



Source: Survey by Traffic Consultant at 10:15 - 11:15 A.M., Thursday, July 
18, 1985. 



93 



Impacts 



parking space would tend to circle hunting for a space, then would park 
further than 2000 feet from the Terminal if no other provision were made 
for them. 



NOTES -- TRANSPORTATION: 

1. Available for public revue in the project file at the Office of Environ- 
mental Review, Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street, San 
Franci sco. 

2. Developments currently being planned by the Redevelopment Agency are 
included to provide a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis. Some 
of these projects may not be implemented or may change in the future. 

3. Wilbur Smith and Associates (revised by MTC staff), "Marine Terminal 
Traffic Generation Manual," MTC/BCDC, 1980. 

4. Tim Titus, APL Port Manager, telephone conversation of July 1985. 

5. Telephone conversation of July 1985. 

6. A plan for this optimization has been developed by the Department of Pub- 
lic Works and is now going through the approval process. Scott Shoaf, 
DPW Traffic Engineering, telephone conversation of September 24, 1985. 

7. William Marconi, P.E., "Supplemental Traffic Report," San Franci sco Con- 
tainer Terminal Modernization, 85.123E, August 15, 1985. 

8. Kaiser Engineers and Barton-Aschman Assoc. for MTC, "Peninsula Mass 
Transit Study," March 1985. 

9. Roger Parvin, Industrial Engineering Department of the Postal Service, 
telephone conversation of July 1985. 

10. A map showing these routes is available for public review in the project 
file at the Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. One 
route involves going north on AT-SP track which becomes an AT-SP line, 
going west on a Southern Pacific line at Sixteenth St. to join the main 
SP line, south on the main SP line, then east on the Quint St. SP line to 
about Third St., where the car can be transferred to the Belt Line to 
complete its trip to the South Terminal. The second route uses the 
Western Pacific line and goes northeast from the North Terminal to the 
Western Pacific 23rd St. rail yard, continues south on Western Pacific 
to south of Army St., west in a loop down to McKinnon St., where it 
transfers to Southern Pacific tract and joins the SP/Belt Line end of 
route 1. 

11. Velio Kiisk, Chief Harbor Engineer, Tetter of August 13, 1985. 



94 



Impacts 



Emergency Services 

Potential effects of increased rail activity at the ICTF were discussed with 
staff of the Fire and Police Departments and the San Francisco Emergency 
Ambul ance Service. 

Assistant Chief Gerald Cullen of the Fire Department is concerned about the 
Fire Department's ability to respond to alarms from Engine Company 25 at 
Third Street and Cargo Way and Engine Company 9, Truck Company 9 and Battal- 
lion 10 from Station 9 at Jerrold Avenue near Napoleon Street, if unit 
trains blocked Jerrold Avenue, Evans Avenue or Third Street (see Figure 
15, page 96). Companies from both stations could be blocked simul tanously 
by a 25-car train for less than one minute. 

About half the calls for Engine 25 come from south of Cargo Way and service 
to this area would be impacted by additional train movements. The alter- 
nate route of response via Third Street, Army Street, Evans Avenue, Toland 
Street and Oakdale Avenue back to Third Street would be longer than the 
straight line response on Third Street. 

Chief Cullen was also concerned about the docking facility for the fire 
boat adjacent to the Engine 25 firehouse on the south side of Islais Creek 
east of the existing Third Street Bridge (see Figure 14, page 90, for loca- 
tion of this firehouse). This docking site is used during stormy weather. 
Trains on the new drawbridge could slow raising of the bridge in an emer- 
gency. 1 

Officer Michael Mahony of Potrero Station indicated that additional trains 
to' the ICTF would impact Police Department response. About a third of the 
Potrero Station calls come from south of Cargo Way and 43% of the Station's 

95 



Impacts 




Impacts 



calls occur between 4 P.M. and midnight. Between midnight and 6 P.M. the 
percentage drops to 11%. ^ 

Robert Navarro, Chief Paramedic of the San Francisco Health Department,-* 
felt that occasional street blockage of up to six minutes would not pre- 
sent much difficulty for his operations. He suggested that advance infor- 
mation would be helpful in routing ambulances. See the Mitigation Measures 
chapter, page 126, for implementation of this suggestion. 

NOTES — EMERGENCY SERVICES 

1. Telephone conversation of August 2, 1985. 

2. William Marconi, "Port of San Francisco Southern Waterfront Improvements 
Traffic Study," July 27, 1985. 

3. Telephone conversation of July 22, 1985. 
Train Noise Impacts* 

The SFCT is in an industrial area and there are no noise-sensitive land uses 
nearby. The noise-sensitive occupancies that would be affected by this pro- 
ject are homes near the Southern Pacific railroad tracks between San Fran- 
cisco and San Jose. In San Francisco people whose homes adjoin the railroad 
tracks on Oakdale, Williams and Paul Avenues would be affected (approxima- 
tely 100 homes). Between the Bayshore yard and San Jose, the tracks run 
through industrial and residential neighborhoods in South San Francisco, 
San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood 
City, Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa 
Clara, and San Jose. In San Jose, south of the Southern Pacific depot, the 
tracks run primarily through industrial neighborhoods. 

97 



Impacts 



The area bordering the train tracks is currently exposed to noise from 
trains: there are 46 commute train operations per day between San Francisco 
and San Jose. Seven of these occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. There 
are approximately four freight trains per day in San Francisco, two of them 
at night. There are six freight train operations per day on the Peninsula, 
two of them at night. In San Jose south of the SP depot, there are twelve 
freight trains per day, four of them at night, and two passenger trains per 
day. There are also unscheduled local freight operations on all sections 
of the 1 ine. 

Background noise levels were evaluated on the basis of a 24-hour noise 
measurement near the intersection of Williams Avenue and Diana Street in 
San Francisco and previous noise studies made by the noise consultant. The 
day/night average noise level (L^p)^ was 73 dB 100 feet from the railroad 
tracks from San Francisco to the SP depot in San Jose. South of the Southern 
Pacific depot in San Jose, the Ld n 100 feet from the tracks is approximately 
70 dB due to railroad operations. 

There could be a maximum of 32 shuttle operations per day between the ICTF 
and the Bayshore yard with the ICTF operating at capacity, 14 at night and 
18 during the day. South of the Bayshore yard typically there would be an 
additional four unit trains per day, two at night and two during the day. 
There could be a maximum of ten trains per day, four at night and six during 
the day, with the ICTF operating at capacity. 

This increase in trains would cause an increase of 1-2 dB in the L^n on the 
average, with a maximum of 3 dB on days when the ICTF is operating at capa- 
city. Most people would not notice these increases in the average noise 
1 evel . 

98 



Impacts 



The noise levels can also be described by the nighttime equivalent noise 
level, L pn ,^ because of the increased sensitivity of people to noise at 
night. In San Francisco, the nighttime L e q would increase by 2-3 dB on the 
average and by 4 dB when the ICTF operates at capacity. On the Peninsula 
and in South San Jose, the L e q would increase 1-2 dB on the average and by 
3 dB when the ICTF operates at capacity. Most people would not notice 
these changes in the average nighttime noise level. 

It can be anticipated that for every decibel increase in L^n above 60 dB two 
percent of the exposed population will be annoyed. 1 In San Francisco, an 
additional six percent of the people exposed to the increased train noise 
may be annoyed and on the Peninsula and in South San Jose, four percent of 
exposed people may be annoyed. 

Since the character of the noise would not change with the project, those 
people who are not currently annoyed at the noise level would not be expected 
to be bothered by the increase in the number of trains and those people who 
are currently annoyed may be concerned about the increase in the number of 
trains, particularly the night trains. People who are awakened at night by 
the present trains may be awakened more often with the project. Those who 
are not awakened would not be expected to notice an increase in night train 
traffic. 



NOISE NOTES: 

1. This section is based on the report prepared by Thomas S. Lillo of Char- 
les M. Salter Associates, Inc., Noise Analysis, San Francisco Container 
Terminal Modernization EIR, San Francisco, California, August 16, 1985, 
available for public review in the project file at the Department of 
City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

2. Ld n = an average sound level, based on human reaction to cumulative 
noise exposure over a 24-hour period, which takes into account the 



99 



Impacts 



greater annoyance of nighttime noises. Noise between 10 PM and 7 AM is 
weighted 10 dBA higher than daytime noise. 

3. L e q = the equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period 
of time would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying 
sound level during the same time period. 



Ai r Qual i ty Impacts 

Project- related air emissions would primarily arise from project-related 
truck trips and new cargo-handling equipment. Construction would cause 
short term emissions, primarily of particulates. Increased trips by vari- 
ous modes of travel would increase emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitro- 
gen oxides (N0 X ) and possibly sulfur oxides (S0 X ). Nitrogen oxides and 
hydrocarbons (HC) are both chemical precursors of ozone. Motor vehicles 
emit more N0 X than HC, and the emissions from natural gas combustion for 
space- and water-heating in buildings consists primarily of N0 X . As demon- 
strated by the LIRAQ (Livermore Regional Air Quality) model regional ozone 
computer simulations conducted for the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, an 
increase in the future N0 X emissions compared to HC emissions would lead to 
a decrease in ozone compared to present levels. This model has also shown 
that Bay Area ozone concentrations are expected to be within the federal 
standard in 1987, and thereafter. As future N0 X emissions from cumulative 
development in San Francisco would exceed future HC emissions, this devel- 
opment would not lead to an increase in total Bay Area ozone concentra- 
tions. 

At the same time, total emissions of both N0 X and HC are expected to decrease 
in San Francisco. Total N0 X emissions would decrease in San Francisco by 
about two percent from 1984 to 2000, but would increase in the Bay Area by 
about five percent from 1984 to 2000. It is possible that excess N0 X emis- 

100 



Impacts 



sions generated by cumulative development (including the SFCT) could in- 
crease ozone and/or nitrogenous oxidant concentrations further downwind, 
outside the Bay Area. In addition, N0 X emissions generated by cumulative 
development (including the SFCT) throughout the Bay Area could increase 
acid rain further downwind, outside the Bay Area, though to a relatively 
small extent, due to the low magnitude of the cumulative increase and to 
dilution over time and distance. 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) New Source Review, Regu- 
lation 2, Rule 2, applies to "all new and modified stationary sources which, 
after construction, emit more than 68 kg (150 lbs) per day of organic com- 
pounds, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxides or particulate matter, or carbon mon- 
oxide in excess of 249 kg (550 lbs) per day..." If the SFCT project were 
to exceed the trigger levels, then project-related train and ship emissions 
would come under BAAQMD jurisdiction. 

The Cal ifornia legislature has mandated a biannual inspection and mainte- 
nance (I/M) program which applies to most cars and light trucks in Califor- 
nia. This program went into operation in March 1984. Vehicles covered by 
the legislation must undergo a check consisting of a visual inspection of 
the vehicles' emission control system, measurement of tailpipe emissions 
while the vehicle is idling and comparison of the measured emissions rates 
to the allowable limits for the appropriate year of manufacture and model 
of vehicle. Vehicles must have the required emission control equipment, and 
equi pment must meet the specified standards for hydrocarbons and carbon 
monoxide. If required emissions control equipment is not present it must 
be installed. If all required equipment is in place but the vehicle's 
emissions exceed the standards, the owner must pay a maximum of $50 for 

101 



Impacts 



service intended to result in compliance. 

An annual I/M program was evaluated in the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan 
based on the 1979 source inventory. Based on predicted reduction in HC and 
CO of 25% in vehicles covered, a reduction in total motor vehicle-generated 
CO of about 18% would be expected. The reduction in total regional CO 
emissions would be about 16%. The reduction in motor vehicle-generated HC 
would be about 17%; the reduction in total regional HC emissions would be 
about 6%. It can be seen from this data that the I/M program is expected 
to result in reductions in HC and CO emissions. 

As CO concentrations in San Francisco are almost entirely due to motor 
vehicles, future CO levels are predicted to be lower than they would be 
without an I/M program. The I/M program will affect the background air pol- 
lution level in the project area but would not affect project emissions, 
since few project-rel ated trips would be made in vehicles affected by the 
I/M program. 

The linear roll-back model used to estimate CO emissions for cumulative 
Downtown development in the Downtown Plan EIR (DTP EIR) is not appropriate 
for use in estimating port-related emissions, because the model assumes 
that the cumulative effect of a series of individual projects will average 
out to a linear increase and assumes a mix of vehicles representing the 
average mix of vehicles on city streets. Although the SFCT improvements 
would not all be implemented at once, they would be small in number and 
would tend to result in a non-linear increase in diesel emissions. The 
model assumes 2% heavy duty diesel vehicles and its results are dominated 
by the 86% light duty automobile component, 1 while the SFCT has 65% heavy 
duty diesel trucks. 

102 



Impacts 



In order to estimate project contribution to air pollution in 1995, truck 
emissions have been estimated using emissions factors developed from the 
California Air Resources Board's EMFAC6D emissions analysis program, see 
Table 32, page 104. 

Emissions of total suspended particulates (TSP) resulting from construction 
and from truck trips generated by the project and cumulative development 
would increase TSP concentrations, which could increase the frequency of 
TSP standard violations in San Francisco, with concomitant health effects 
and reduced visibility. 2 Expansion of SFCT cargo throughput would have pro- 
portionately more impact on particulates than other San Francisco projects 
typically do, because the diesel engines in large trucks and container 
handling equipment generally emit more particulates than automobile (gaso- 
line) engines do. 

The truck trips associated with the project would result in the air pollu- 
tant emissions shown in Table 32, page 104. Phases I and II together would 
contribute annual particulate emissions of 138 tons distributed over the 
routes taken by the trucks. 

Transtainers and other diesel-powered equipment would be used to move con- 
tainers to and from backland storage and on and off rail cars. There are no 
transtainers currently in use at the SFCT. Phase I development would 
result in use of two to five transtainers at the North Terminal and Phase 
II would involve addition of four transtainers at the South Terminal. The 
largest of the existing container movers are called port packers. There 
are currently 21 port packers at the North Terminal^ and 16 at the South 
Terminal . 4 



103 



Impacts 



Table 32. Emissions from Heavy Duty Truck Trips Associated with 
Phase I and Phase II SFCT Improvements (in tons per year). 1 * 2 



1985 1995 1995 1995 1995 Emissions 

Existing Base Project Project Base With Rate (g/mi) 

Without Phase I Phase II Phases Ave. speed 

Project I & II 25 mph 



particulates 91.6 
hydrocarbons 25.1 



nitrogen 142.3 
oxides 



sulfur oxides 30.0 

carbon 91.4 
monoxide 



91.6 

24.3 

114.1 
30.0 

91.0 



56.5 

15.0 

70.4 
18.5 

56.1 



81.8 

21.7 

101.9 
26.8 

81.2 



221.4 

58.7 

275.8 
72.4 

219.9 



8.56 
2.35 
2.27 3 

13.3 

10. 66 3 
2.8 
8.54 
8.50 3 



1. Assumptions: 



existing 1985 VMT (vehicle miles travelled) 
1995 base VMT without project 
1995 Phase I VMT 
1995 Phase II VMT 
1995 base + Phases I & II VMT 
average tri p 1 ength 



= 9,707,000 
= 9,707,000 
= 5,990,000 
■ 8,671,000 
= 23,467,000 
= 42 miles 



2. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC6D Emissions Analysis Computer 
Program Runs supplied by Michael Kim of the Bay Area Air Quality Manag- 
ment District, August 10, 1985. 

3. Emissions rates for hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide 
change between 1985 and 1995 because of implementation of federal air 
quality standards. 

Source: Richard Pollack, Ph.D., Environmental Impact Planning Corp., and 
Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



104 



Impacts 



Transtainers and other container-handling equipment (other than the cranes) 
have 215 hp diesel engines. They are not used continuously. Use varies 
from day to day and hour to hour, depending on whether a vessel is berthed 
or a train is in the ICTF. The cumulative number of hours per day of use 
of existing and new transtainers and other diesel yard equipment would vary 
from zero to most of the equipment in use simultaneously, depending on the 
level of activity at the SFCT. The cumulative average emissions of new 
equipment would not exceed 149 lb/day of N0 X (about 25% of project- related 
truck emissions), 69 lb/day of CO (about 15% of project-related truck 
emissions), and 6 lb/day of hydrocarbons (less than 5% of project-rel ated 
truck emissions). 5 As previously indicated, the trigger for BAAQMD review 
of such emissions is 150 lb/day of any one pollutant other than CO for which 
the trigger is 550 lb/day. The project would not trigger BAAQMD review. 

A 1979 MTC/BCDC report, Environmental Analyses for Potential Marine Terminal 
Sites, Working Paper No. 7 of the MTC/BCDC Port Planning Project, analyzed 
the potential environmental impacts of expanded port development at 64 Bay 
Area sites. 6 The North and South Terminal Areas received overall air qua- 
lity ratings that indicated that the SFCT would have relatively little en- 
vironmental impact. 7 The project area, and some other San Francisco sites, 
were the only sites in the study to receive the most favorable ventilation, 
vertical mixing and exposure of downwind receptors ratings of 5. Existing 
air quality, taking into account S0 X , total particulates, CO, nitrogen 
dioxide, and oxidants, was rated 3.7. The highest rating, of 4.1, went to 
Oakland sites near the Oakland/San Francisco Bay Bridge and along the Oak- 
land Inner Harbor. The lowest rating, 2.4, went to Redwood City sites. 



105 



Impacts 



The SFCT overall air quality rating was 4.61. No site received a higher 
overall air quality rating; some other San Francisco sites received the 
same rating. These ratings mean that development of expanded maritime 
activity at the SFCT was predicted to have less air quality impact than a 
similar expansion of maritime activity at any other Bay Area site. 

The Final EIR for the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan states that "The 
air quality problems related to the marine terminal development anticipated 
in the Seaport Plan are not significant enough to warrant separate mitigation 
measures in their impact report or the Plan...ABAG, BAAQMD, and MTC are cur- 
rently updating the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision as 
required by the Clean Air Act. This revision would tend to minimize any 
potential air quality problems associated with marine terminal develop- 
ment." 8 

A comparison of train air pollutant contributions in the Bay Area in 1979 and 
as predicted for the year 2000 is given in Table 33, page 107. This Table 
shows that the main contribution of rail to Bay Area pollution is N0 X . All 
rail activity in the area contributed 0.7% of N0 X emissions to the air 
basin in 1979 and the rail contribution is predicted to rise to 0.9% in 2000, 
taking into consideration projected cargo throughput increases, including a 
San Francisco increase. As indicated in Appendix A, pages A-28 and A-29, 
rail is a relatively more fuel efficient transportation mode than truck; 
it also results in less air pollution per cargo-mile than does truck trans- 
port. The ICTF would tend to shift trips to and from the SFCT from truck 
to the less polluting rail mode. 

Table 33 also indicates that the main contribution of ships to air pollution 
is sulfur dioxide, increasing from 4.9% to 5.1% in 2000. The sulfur dioxide 

106 



Impacts 



Table 33. Train and Ship Contributions to Bay Area Air Pollution 

in 1979 and 2000. 



Year/Transportation 
Mode 



Particu- 
lates 



ROG 



NO, 



S0 2 



CO 



1979 

steamships (cargo + 
passenger) + diesel motor 
ships (cargo + tugs) 

rail 



0.08% 
0.06% 



0.2% 
0.2% 



0.5% 
0.7% 



4.9% 
0.3% 



0.02% 
0.05% 



2000 

steamships (Cargo + 
passenger) + diesel motor 
ships (cargo + tugs) 

rail 



0.08% 
0.06% 



0.25% 
0.3% 



0.7% 
0.9% 



5.1% 
0.3% 



0.03% 
0.08% 



ROG = reactive organics SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

Source: 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, ABAG/BAAQMD/MTC, 1982, Appendix E. 
and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



comes mainly from the sulfur in the fuel used by steamships. The increase 
in ships that would come to the expanded ICTF would be within the projections 
made in evaluation of the environmental impacts of the San Francisco Bay 
PI an. 

The 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan contains strategies which consist prima- 
rily of HC and CO emission controls on stationary sources and motor vehi- 
cles, and transportation improvements, and are aimed at attaining the fed- 
eral ozone and CO standards. Emissions associated with the project, to- 



107 



Impacts 



gether with cumulative downtown development under the Downtown Plan, are 
not projected by this EIR or the Downtown Plan EIR to increase ozone concen- 
trations and thus would not conflict with the objectives of the 1982 Bay 
Area Air Quality Plan regarding ozone. 



NOTES AIR QUALITY: 

1. ABAG/BAAQMD/MTC, Methodology for Projecting Future Carbon Monoxide 
Levels and Estimating Control Measure Effectiveness in the 1982 Plan, 
Air Quality Technical Memo 43, 1982, p. 20. 

2. State particulate standards were adopted in 1983 to concentrate on fine 
particulate matter which, through inhalation, has been demonstrated to 
have health implications. Until the State adopts a method for moni- 
toring fine particulate matter, it is not possible to determine what 
proportion of TSP in San Francisco would be subject to review against 
the new standards, whether new standards would be violated, or what the 
health implications would be. 

3. Ian Back, California Stevedore & Ballast Co., telephone conversation of 
September 11, 1985. 

4. Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, telephone conversation 
of September 11, 1985. 

5. Gilbert G. Bendix, P.E., memorandum of August 28, 1985, available for 
public review in the project file at the Department of City Planning, 
450 McAllister Street. 

6. TERA Advanced Services Corp. for MTC/BCDC, pp. 7-165 to 7-170. 

7. Ibid, p. 49. 

8. FEIR, San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and the Seaport Plan Amendments 
to the Regional Transportation Plan, Amendment No. 7 to the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission Environmental Impact Report for the Regional 
Transportation Plan, certified June 26, 1974, ABAG, October 1982, Vol.1, 
p. 48. 



Biological Impacts* 



Herring use the Bay in the vicinity of the project and may spawn there. 
From late November to mid-March the eggs, 'which are attached to submerged 
objects, are vulnerable to siltation, which may result from dredging, fill- 



108 



Impacts 



removal or fill activities. The California Department of Fish and Game is 
concerned that dredging may have a negative impact on reproductive success 
of herring. ^ The only dredging and fill removal that would occur would be 
in Islais Creek, where routine maintenance dredging already occurs, and it 
is unlikely that spawning occurs in the Creek. Most other fish and other 
swimming organisms which would be free to move out of the disturbed area 
would undergo minor effects. 

Increased public use of Pier 98 would disturb gulls, terns, cormorants and 
the shorebirds that feed and roost along the shore of Pier 98, particularly 
beside the mudflat and old pier along the south shore of the Pier. 3 No 
impacts on threatened or endangered species which may use the environs of 
Pier 98 are expected. Two threatened or endangered species use the general 
area. Brown pelicans appear seasonally and Least Terns may visit occasion- 
ally during migration. Both would be found primarily over offshore waters 
of the Bay, foraging for fish, and neither is known to nest in the area. 
No other threatened or endangered species are probable in the project area. 
The new piles at the North Terminal would provide a habitat for various 
invertebrates which, together with their associated small organisms, provide 
a food source for fish and other free-swimming animals. 

Dredging and fill-removal connected with construction of the Islais Creek 
bridge and Phase II berths would result in various short-term impacts to 
marine habitat. These impacts would result from increased water turbidity, 
decreased dissolved oxygen levels, increased levels of suspended nutrients 
and sediment-borne toxic materials, as well as direct destruction of some 
bottom-dwelling organisms. Similar off-site effects could be anticipated 
at the location of dredged material disposal. Such impacts would occur for 

109 



Impacts 



a few days following the construction activity, and populations of bottom- 
dwelling organisms could be expected to recolonize after disturbance. 

An Army Corps of Engineers permit would be obtained for disposal of the 
fill removed from the south side of Islais Creek during Phase II. This 
permit would require tests of the fill material to be removed to determine 
possible impacts on water quality and an appropriate disposal site. Poten- 
tial impacts on Bay organisms would be considered during permit evaluation. 
A small amount of sediment habitat in Islais Creek may be removed as a 
result of the placement of footings for the new interterminal bridge. 

NOTES — BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS: 

1. This section is based on a report by the Biological Consultant to the EIR 
Consultant, Booker Holton Associates, "Required Permits and Approvals 
and Biological Setting, Impacts, and Mitigations," July 17, 1985, avail- 
able for public review in the project file at the Department of City 
Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

2. T. Wooster, July 15, 1985, and P. Swartzell, July 16, 1985, telephone 
conversations with Biological Consultant. 

3. Field observations by Holton Associates, July 9, 1985. 



Public Open Space 

As part of the Phase I development, the Port proposes to develop about 11 
acres of public open space at Pier 98.1 p-j er 98 fill was placed pursuant to 
a 1970 BCDC permit for a container terminal at Pier 98 and for Southern 
Crossing bridge approach ramps. In 1971, the Regional Water Quality Con- 
trol Board (RWQCB) expressed concern about discharges from Pier 98 causing 
discoloration, lowered dissolved oxygen levels, pH effects, hydrogen sul- 
fide odor (odor of rotten eggs), and increased sulfide levels, as well as 
about the apparent incorporation of some Class II materials 2 in the fill, 

110 



Impacts 



including paper, rags, cans and rugs. The Port was required to undertake a 
self-monitoring program which continues at the present time. 

The problems abated in 1972 due to natural settlement of the fill and to 
remedial measures undertaken by the Port. 3 In 1974 the Port complied with 
a request from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to provide a soil 
blanket over the fill on Pier 98. This blanket has controlled leaching 
from the fil 1 

In 1976, BCDC told the Port that part of the Pier 98 fill was unauthorized 
and requested the Port to stop filling. The Port responded that it had 
stopped filling and stated that it had found construction of the previously 
proposed Pier 98 uneconomical, in part because of the cancellation of plans 
for the Southern Crossing of the Bay. In 1978, the north side of the fill 
was protected from erosion by the placement of riprap. 5 In 1979, the 
permit lapsed with 17.7 acres of the originally permitted 48 acres filled. 

In March of 1984, the Port's self-monitoring report to the RWQCB stated 
that there was no evidence of leaching, no odor, no sign of erosion, no 
water discoloration, grease, or other evidence of water pollution. People 
were observed fishing and birds were in the area at the time of moni- 
toring. 6 

The weight of the fill caused a mud wave to the south. As discussed on EIR 
pages 42 to 44, the shallow area created by this mud wave has developed 
into a marsh and tidal mudflat area which is well used by a variety of 
organisms. Port staff have not observed any recent evidence of settlement 
at Pier 98. 7 



111 



Impacts 



The surface of Pier 98 would be developed to encourage public use by persons 
wishing to observe the Bay and tidal mudflat area and/or wishing to fish. 
Mitigation measures to minimize the biological impacts of increased human 
use of the area are described on pages 128 to 129. 

It is possible that one or two acres of the fill may be removed as part of 
the resolution of the uncompleted permit; the matter remains to be discus- 
sed with BCDC as detailed plans for the area develop. 

As indicated in the next subsection (page 116), any removed fill material 
would be tested prior to disposal to insure appropriate disposal in accord 
with Army Corps of Engineers' requirements. 



NOTES PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: 

1. The area varies from about 9 acres at high tide to about 14 acres at 
1 ow tide. 

2. Class II wastes contain chemically or biologically decomposable material 
which are not capable of significantly impairing the quality of usable 
waters. Examples include garbage, rubbish, wood and metal demolition 
materials, dead animals, and rubber scrap. 

3. Port of San Francisco, letter to Regional Water Quality Control Board 
of April 8, 1974. 

4. C. L. Vickers, Jr., Chief Engineer, letter to Regional Water Quality Con- 
trol Board of October 14, 1975. 

5. Riprap is irregularly placed rock or pieces of boulders used to stabilize 
banks against erosion by moving water. 

6. Monitoring report available for public review in the project file at the 
Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

7. Velio Kiisk, Chief Harbor Engineer, 1 etter of August 13, 1985, available 
for public review as in 6. 



112 



Impacts 

Bay Fill and Fill Removal 
Interterminal Bridge 

Because anything that covers the surface of the Bay constitutes fill under 
the law, the pile-supported interterminal bridge would be 0.5 to 1.1 acres 
of new fill. This fill would be more than off-set by Port fill credits 
from removal of piers. 

Removal of Fill from Islais Creek 

Creation of two new berths on the south side of Islais Creek would require 
the removal of about 0.89 acres (50,000 cubic yards) of existing fill on 
the south side of the channel. Most of the fill that overlies the bay mud 
beneath Pier 94 has been placed since 1961. The composition of this fill 
varies from sand and gravel, placed during construction of Pier 94 to sup- 
port the piles, to a debris dike constructed in the early 1960s to contain 
the dredged spoils from the Army Street Terminal Project. 1 

The soil conditions in the area where the two new berths would be developed 
in Phase II are shown in Figure 16, page 114. On the west side of the area 
the material to be removed would be sand and debris fill over bay mud, and 
on the east side it would be debris over bay mud. A cross section through 
the eastern area is shown in Figure 17, page 115. The fill would be re- 
moved down to elevation -40 ft. to match the existing channel depth. If 
the cross section in Figure 17 is typical, most of the material to be re- 
moved would be bay mud. 

Construction debris tends to settle with time and may contain materials 
which decompose over time to form products which may leach and pollute the 
adjacent water. Removal of the debris portion of the fill would remove 
part of a potential leaching problem and part of an area subject to subsi- 

113 



Impacts 



Figure 16. South Terminal Soil Conditions in 
Area of New Terminals for Phase II 




Legend 

^///j Soil and Debris Fills Over Bay Mud 
Landslide Area 

Debris Fill Over Dredge Spoils 
Debris Dike Over Bay Mud 



NORTH 



Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 

(Adapted from Geotechnical Investigation, Pier 94, 1983, Plate 4.) 



114 



j Impacts 




115 



Impacts 



dence. Testing of the fill surface exposed by fill removal would be per- 
formed to determine whether there was any material of concern with respect 
to potential water pollution. See Mitigation Chapter, page 130, for fur- 
ther discussion. In compliance with Army Corps of Engineers' requirements, 
the fill to be removed would be tested to determine whether it contained 
any toxic materials before a dredge spoils disposal site was approved. 

Pier 98 Fill 

The final status of existing Pier 98 fill will be determined by BCDC. Var- 
ious portions of the fill have been placed pursuant to different permits. 
Other provisions of one of these permits have not been implemented since the 
Southern Crossing and a marine terminal at Pier 98 have not been built. The 
status of the "fill" created by the mud wave is unclear. Resolution of the 
legal status of Pier 98 fill may involve removal of some of the fill if 
this can be done without exposing fill that could pollute the Bay. 

NOTES -- FILL REMOVAL: 

1. Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Pier 94, 
San Francisco, California, December 1983, p. 9, available for public 
review in the project file at the Department of City Planning, 450 
McAllister Street. 



Potential Hazards of Methane from Decomposing Fill 

According to a geotechnical report, the fill under Pier 80 "is contaminated 
in some areas with rubble and debris. The western portion of the site was 
originally used as a disposal area but the extent of this original dump was 
not determined during our studies. "1 The debris under Pier 94 consists of 
wood, wood with nails in it, plants, brick", plastic, glass, rock and "miscel- 
laneous trash. The more recent bay mud is often reported as having organic 

116 



Impacts 



material in it. This material in part originates from butchertown^ wastes 
which "went out with the tide." 4 

When such materials are present in fill, there is a potential for the 
growth of bacteria that form methane as they decompose the organic mate- 
rials in the fill. Methane, the dominant component of natural gas, is 
highly flammable, and may constitute a fire and explosion hazard at land- 
fills. 

Methane production from a given fill operation begins in six months to three 
years after placement and goes on for up to hundreds of years depending on 
water content, oxygen level (methane-producing bacteria live in the absence 
of oxygen), temperature, composition of the fill, and other factors. Me- 
thane production is stimulated by the presence of a high percentage of 
biodegradabl e materials such as wood. 5 Methane is lighter than air and 
tends to rise. Sometimes it travels considerable distances laterally, 
particularly when there are voids created by large items in the fill. In 
concentrations between 5 and 15 percent by volume in air, methane is flam- 
mable. 

Surface methane measurements indicate that methane is present at the South 
Terminal in the range of 25 to 11,000 parts per million (0.025 to 1.1%), 
which is below the flammable range. 6 Since methane can travel unpredict- 
ably through fill, it could be possible for flammable concentrations of 
methane to be trapped under impervious surfaces constructed on the fill. 
Mitigation measures to insure dissipation of methane as it reaches the 
surface are discussed on page 131. 



117 



Impacts 



Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is a colorless, odorless gas 
with a toxicity rating of "1" which means that it is a chemical that can 
enter the body by inhalation or skin contact and "produce only slight toxic 
effects, regardless of the amount absorbed or the extent of the exposure. 



METHANE NOTES: 

1. Dames and Moore, Geotechnical Investigation, Army Street Terminal (Pier 
80), San Francisco, California, for the San Francisco Port Commission, 
1982, available for public review in the project file at the Department 
of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

2. Geotechnial Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Pier 94, San 
Francisco, December 1983, p. 10, available for public review as in 1. 

3. The area south of Islais Creek and east of Third Street once held many 
slaughterhouses, hence it is sometimes referred to as "butchertown." 

4. Roger Olmstead, Nancy Olmstead, Allen Pastron and Jack Prichett, "Rincon 
de las Salinas y Potrero Viejo — The Vanished Corner", Report Prepared 
for the San Francisco Clean Water Program, 1981, p. 124. 

5. Emcon Associates and Gas Recovery Systems, Inc., Landfill Gas, An Analy- 
sis of Options, prepared for the New York State Energy Office, 1981, p. 
3, available for public review as in 1. 

6. Flay, Robert B., Manager, Organics Department, Environmental Research 
Group, Inc., Report #6104, August 22, 1985, available for public re- 
view at the Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

7. Sax, N. Irving, "Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials," Sixth 
Edition, Van Nostrand, 1984, pp. 1 and 1763. One on a scale of to 4, 
in which is no toxicity. 



Business Displacement 

Phase II development of container berths on the South side of Islais Creek 
would displace existing businesses (see Figure 9, page 21, for locations). 
Since Phase II implementation is not expected to take place until five to 
ten years from now, a representative of each firm was asked whether they 



118 



Impacts 



expected to be at their present location in five to ten years and whether 
they would anticipate any difficulty in relocation. 

The Recycling Center (five employees) is on a month-to-month lease and does 
not regard the site as permanent. If they were still there at the time of 
implementation of Phase II they would look for a "light industrial space." 1 

Tidewater Sand and Gravel i s on a month-to-month lease but has no plans to 
move within the next five to ten years. This firm requires access to a 
berth that can accommodate deep draft vessels and a large backland area and 
feels that it would be difficult to relocate. The firm has three full time 
and one part time employee. 2 

The fishmeal plant operated by California Stevedore & Ballast is on a month- 
to-month lease but has no plans to move within the next five to ten years. 
Improvements at the site would have to be moved if the facility were to 
relocate. There are three permanent employees and up to 35 temporary 
employees when a vessel is being loaded or unloaded. 3 

The tallow works has no plans to move within the next five to ten years. 
Rel ocation woul d be possible assuming adequate financial resources. The 
plant has three employees. ^ 

Continental Grain has a lease until 2003 and has asked the Port to terminate 
the lease. 5 This firm has six permanent employees and up to 16 temporary 
employees when loading or unloading a vessel. ^ 

The Port is willing to relocate displaced month-to-month tenants elsewhere 
on Port property, if the tenants can meet the market lease rates, but the 



119 



Impacts 



Port indicates that it cannot subsidize tenants who cannot pay market 
rates. 5 

Assuming no change in current employment levels, displacement of these five 
businesses would displace 20 permanent, 51 temporary and 1 part-time jobs, 
of which three full-time and one part-time jobs could be lost due to failure 
to find a satisfactory relocation site. The Phase II development would 
create about 40 new permanent jobs and about 55 temporary jobs, for a net 
gain of about 20 permanent jobs and would cause little change in the number 
of 1 ongshoremens ' jobs. The number of days per year of work for longshoremen 
would be greater in Phase II than at present because there would be a larger 
number of larger vessels to load and unload. 

NOTES -- BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT: 

1. Jane Olsen, telephone conversation of October 10, 1985. 

2. Ms. E. P. Seaborn, telephone conversation of October 9, 1985. 

3. Tom Kohler, telephone conversation of October 9, 1985. 

4. Gene Riddle, telephone conversation of October 10, 1985. 

5. Jack Conrad, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation of October 
11, 1985. 

6. Don Strenik, telephone conversation of October 9, 1985. 



Growth Inducing Impacts 

The proposed project would be within the parameters considered in the devel- 
opment of the Seaport Plan. The Final EIR for the Seaport Plan, in evalua- 
tion of Growth Inducing Impacts, stated that: "...the Seaport Plan is in- 
tended to enhance regional economic activity by providing for orderly port 
development, protecting the environment, making efficient use of resources 

120 



Impacts 



and coordinating development activities. The planning process leading to 
the recommended Plan assumes that existing facilities will not be suffi- 
cient to accommodate anticipated increases in dry cargo. The proposed pro- 
ject does not induce growth. The project recommends actions needed to 
accommodate projected growth in port activity. This projection is based on 
assumptions about the growth in international and domestic waterborne trade 
on the West Coast and through the Bay Area." 1 - The same statement is appli- 
cable to the proposed San Francisco project. 



NOTE — GROWTH INDUCTION 



1. "FEIR for the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and the Seaport Plan 
Amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan, Amendment No. 7 to the 
MTC EIR for the Regional Transportation PI an,"certi fied June 26, 1974, 
Vol. I. Environmental Impacts, ABAG, 1982. 



121 



CHAPTER V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified 
that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the pro- 
posed project. Some of these measures have been or would be adopted by the 
Port, some may be implemented by other public agencies, some are undergoing 
evaluation by the Port, and the Port has decided not to implement some of 
them. Federal and state agencies could require that some or all of the 
measures within the Port's powers, or variations thereof, be included as 
conditions of project approval. Mitigation measures included as part of 
the project and presented in the Initial Study (Appendix A) are included 
bel ow. 

Each mitigation measure and its status is discussed below. Where a measure 
has not been included in the project, the reasons for this are stated. 

Transportation Mitigation 

Measures I ncl uded i n the Proposed P roject 

1. Development of the ICTF would shift cargo movement from trucks to rail. 
This would decrease the number of trucks required to handle a given cargo 
throughput and decrease traffic on feeder streets and adjacent freeways. 

2. The Port would ask MUNI to provide schedules for relevant bus lines to 
the operators of the North and South Terminals for distribution to their 
employees once a year in order to encgurage transit use by Terminal em- 
pi oyees. 

.... $ 

122 



Mi tigation Measures 



3. The Port would inform Terminal operators about the Metropolitan Trans- 
portation Commission Regional Transit Connection service as an efficient 
means of obtaining schedules, maps, tickets and passes for all Bay Area 
transit systems to facilitate Terminal employee use of public transit. 

4. The Port would provide Terminal operators with information about the 
role of RIDES for Bay Area Commuters in provision of car and van pool ser- 
vices to encourage car and van pooling of Terminal operators' employees. 

5. The Port would publicize California Stevedore and Ballast Company's use 
of a van to pick up and deliver employees at BART stations through an article 
in Wharfside to encourage expansion of such van service. 

6. The Port would request the SFCT stevedore companies to inform truck 
drivers of the Third Street truck prohibition (see Figure 13, page 47, for 
location) and to request drivers to use the Pennsylvania Street on-ramp and 
the Army Street off-ramp for access to the south. When the Evans Avenue 
ramps are completed, instructions for South Terminal drivers would be re- 
vised appropriately. 

7. The Port would incorporate enough on-site parking at the North Terminal 
to prevent new employee parking demand from affecting adjacent City streets. 

8. The Port would investigate possible computerization of paperwork at the 
scale house at the North Terminal as a means of speeding up truck processing 
and decreasing queuing. This investigation is under way and will be imple- 
mented when an effective and economically feasible method is developed. 

9. The Port would convert one or two outbound lanes at the North Terminal 
scale house to inbound lanes to reduce queuing. 



123 



Mi tigation Measures 



The Port would request the Director of Public Works to implement measures 
ten through seventeen to increase operational efficiency and hence reduce 
delay to users of City streets. * 

10. In order to improve the flow of traffic north on Third Street from the 
Army Street intersection, prohibit parking on both sides of Third Street 
north and south of Army Street and rechannel the intersection to allow three 
through lanes and one left turn traffic lane in each direction. Provide an 
appropriate left turn signal phase for northbound Third Street left turns. 
The Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division, has initiated 
procedures to obtain approval for this measure. The measure will be dis- 
cussed by the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transporta- 
tion, a public hearing will be held, and the Board of Supervisors will be 
asked to approve the measure. This will occur whether the proposed project 
is implemented or not. 

The Department of Public Works is taking the steps legally required to ini- 
tiate measures 11, 12 and 13. 

11. Restripe the Third Street left turn at Cargo Way to provide two lanes 
rather than the present single lane to facilitate left turns and to prevent 
left turners from backing up Third Street traffic. 

12. Improve signing at the 1-280 Pennsylvania Street on-ramp for northbound 
Third Street traffic. 

13. Provide guide lines for Evans Avenue traffic at Third Street, since 
street capacity is optimized by defined lanes. 

Measures 14 to 17 would be implemented administratively by the Department 

124 



Mitigation Measures 



of Public Works when they feel that traffic conditions warrant such changes. 

14. Retime the signals on Third Street at Army Street, Cargo Way and Evans 
Avenue to better reflect current and future traffic demands. 

15. Restripe Army Street near the entrance to the North Terminal to shift 
the two queueing lanes on Army Street northward two or three feet to allow 
for provision of an access lane for businesses on the south side of this 
block of Army Street to relieve conflicts between trucks going to the North 
Terminal and other traffic. 

16. Post additional signs to notify drivers of the prohibition against 
large through trucks on Third Street and to indicate alternate truck routes. 

17. When the new Evans Avenue freeway on-ramps are opened, additional signs 
would be posted on Third Street at Evans Avenue warning southbound truckers 
of the prohibition against trucks and indicating Evans Avenue to 1-80 as 
the truck route to the south. 

Measures Under Consideration 

1. A decision to operate longer trains in and out of the ICTF only at 
night would decrease train interference with street traffic between the 
ICTF and the Brisbane train yard, where the unit trains would be made up. 
This would not decrease potential delay to emergency vehicles and would 
increase night train noise between the ICTF and the Brisbane train yard. 
The operational , environmental, and economic effects of different train 
schedules are being evaluated by Port staff and consultants. A decision 
would be made by the Port Director before inauguration of expanded ICTF 
service in 1987. 

125 



Mitigation Measures 



2. The Port would consider restricting on-street parking on Port property 
along Army Street to improve traffic flow to the entrance to the North 
Terminal. This measure would probably be opposed by Port neighbors on Army 
Street and would have to be discussed with them. 

3. The Port would consider a program to coordinate shipping schedules 
among railroads, steamship companies, shippers, trucking companies and 
stevedores so as to spread goods movement over a wider period of time and 
decrease peak congestion periods and conflicts with commuter traffic. Some 
of the peaks in vessel arrivals are due to factors involved in transpacific 
shipping schedules, and it is unlikely that the Port would be able to in- 
fluence these schedules. 

4. The Port would consider requesting the San Francisco Police Department 
to increase enforcement of the Third Street through truck prohibition. A 
decision would be made on the basis of priorities for Port requests to the 
Police Department. 

5. The Port would consider requiring Terminal operators to establish pro- 
visions for on-site sale of Muni passes. 

6. The Port would consider requiring Terminal operators to do a survey of 
the travel modes of permanent workers every two years. 

Measure That Could Be Implemented by the U.S. Customs Servi ce 

1. The Port would request an additional customs officer at the North Ter- 
minal scale house during peak periods to reduce queueing and speed up cargo 
handling. The Customs Service is currently anticipating a transition to 
computerized operation and it is unlikely that the current Pacific Coast- 

126 



Mitigation Measures 



wide shortage of customs staff will be alleviated in the near future. The 
Customs Service is unwilling to predict future San Francisco staffing. 2 
Since implementation of the entire project would occur over a period of ten 
years, or more, there is opportunity for changes in Customs Service policy 
before completion of the project. All Pacific Coast ports are working 
jointly to obtain such changes. Under these circumstances, it does not 
seem unreasonable to assume that, since the shortage of customs staff at 
Pacific Coast ports affects Federal revenues, some means of alleviating the 
current situation will be found. 

Train/Emergency Vehicle Conflict Mitigation Measures 

Measures Included in the Proposed Project 

1. The Port would develop procedures in consultation with the Police and 
Fire Departments for notification of the 911 central emergency switchboard 
when trains would be scheduled which could block emergency service vehicles. 

2. When and if train movements become numerous enough for the emergency 
services to report repeated instances of emergency response delay to Port 
staff, the Port would explore the possibilities of realignment of the speed 
limiting curves in the Southern Pacific track west of Third Street so that 
an operating speed of 10 miles per hour could be achieved. This would 
halve the maximum twenty-five car train blockage time at an intersection 
from six minutes to three minutes. 

3. When and if built, the interterminal bridge would be available for emer- 
gency vehicle use if a train blocked their normal route. This route might 
take as long as other alternate routes or waiting for the train to move. 



127 



Mitigation Measures 



4. If the interterminal bridge is built, the Port would ensure that either 
there was a stormy weather location for the fireboat east of the new bridge 
satisfactory to the Fire Department or procedures for prompt emergency open- 
ing of the bridge for the fireboat if it is to be moored west of the new 
bridge. The potential for trains on the bridge preventing lifting of the 
bridge would be taken into consideration in planning. The Port would also 
develop procedures for the new bridge to be opened within the travel time 
of the fireboat from its normal mooring near Pier 24 in case of need for 
fireboat response at Islais Creek. 

5. Phase I development of the South Terminal would include a new roadway 
connection at the Pier 96 gate. A connection from Third Street north of 
Engine 25 to the road would be provided for the Fire Department to maintain 
a secondary access from this fire station to Cargo Way and points south. 

Air Pollution Mitigation Measures 

Measures I ncorporated i n the P roposed Project 

1. Construction of the ICTF would shift container transport from trucks to 
less polluting rail transport. 

2. Mitigation measures designed to improve the flow of traffic, described 
on pages 122 to 126, would decrease air pollution. 

3. The Port would require construction contractors to water exposed ground 
surfaces in the work area at least twice a day to reduce airborne construc- 
tion dust by about 50% and reduce the probability of exceeding state and 
federal particulate standards. 

4. Use of electric instead of diesel cargo cranes at the North Terminal 

128 



Mitigation Measures 



would decrease air pollution in San Francisco and increase it elsewhere, 
possibly in portions of the air basin with worse air quality, because ap- 
proximately three times as much fuel would be burned to generate electri- 
city to run the cranes as would be burned to run the cranes directly from 
diesel engines. Use of diesel cranes could have triggered BAAQMD review. 

Biological Mitigation Measures 

Measures Incorporated in the Proposed Project 

1. The marsh which has developed south of Pier 98 as a result of a mud 
wave caused by the weight of the adjacent fill would be preserved. 

2. No dredging is anticipated in areas where herring spawn. If it should 
prove necessary to do dredging which could result in siltation in a herring 
spawning area, impacts on spawning areas would be mitigated by timing con- 
struction to avoid the spawning period from late November to mid-March. 

3. The removal of fill on the south side of Islais Creek or possible dredg- 
ing to deepen the Islais Creek channel to 42 feet from the mouth to the 
Phase II berths would be done with equipment and techniques designed to 
minimize impacts on adjacent Bay water quality. 

4. Any landscaping on Pier 98 would employ native species common to Cali- 
fornia coastal scrub and to Salicornia marsh communities. 

5. The landscaping of the ICTF and any other SFCT landscaping which may be 
done would employ native species to the maximum extent feasible in order to 
preserve and enhance natural ecological associations of animals and plants. 

6. The access trail on Pier 98 would be routed away from its south shore, 

129 



Mitigation Measures 



down the middle of the fill area or along the north shore. This would pro- 
vide views of the marsh on the south side while minimizing human activity 
impacts on the salt marsh and the water birds using the south shore. 

7. If the interterminal bridge should require footings in Islais Creek, 
these footings would be designed to have minimum impact on water circulation 
in Islais Creek and would be constructed by methods designed to minimize 
water turbidity (cloudiness). 

Measures Under Consideration 

1. The Port would consider dredging small tidal channels in the Salicornia 
marsh area on the south side of Pier 98 to improve tidal flushing of the 
area and, thus, habitat quality. The decision would be made by the Port 
Director on the basis of consultation with BCDC, the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Game and of funding 
avail abil ity. 

Public Access 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. The trail on Pier 98 would be designed to be wheelchair accessible. 

2. A sign informing people about the availability of public access would 
be placed at the entrance to the public open space area at Pier 98. 

3. The Port would perform routine maintenance at the Pier 98 public area. 
Measure not Incorporated in the Proposed ^Project 

1. Public access would not be provided across the working piers at the 

130 



Mitigation Measures 



North and South Terminals, because this cannot be done safely in an area 
where cargo is being moved. 

Dredging and Fill Removal Mitigation 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. Biological Mitigation Measure 2 would mitigate the impacts of dredging 
and fill removal on water turbidity and composition. 

2. Before removal of the fill on the south side of Islais Creek or possible 
dredging to deepen Islais Creek to 42 feet for the berths on the south side 
of Islais Creek, the fill or bottom sediments would be sampled and tested to 
determine chemical composition and insure that they would meet the Army Corps 
of Engineers requirements for disposal at the dredge disposal site near 
Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay. Disposal would be at the Alcatraz site or 
other site designated by the Corps as appropriate. BCDC would accept any 
Corps-approved site. 

3. Should analysis indicate that any remaining fill surface exposed to Bay 
waters by fill removal had the potential to pollute the Bay, the fill would 
be sealed with an appropriate material to prevent leaching into the Bay. 
The Regional Water Quality Control Board and the BCDC would be consulted on 
appropriate procedures and materials and would have to issue permits. 

4. The 0.5 to 1.1 acres of fill for the interterminal bridge would be more 
than offset by existing Port fill credits. 

5. Before a decision is made about the status of the fill at Pier 98, 
cores would be made in the fill and analyzed to determine whether fill re- 
moval could release pollutants into Bay water. 

131 



Mi tigation Measures 



6. Phase II would involve the removal of about 0.89 acres of existing fill 
from the south side of Islais Creek. 

Methane Hazard Mitigation 

Measures Incorporated in the Proposed Project 

1. A survey of methane concentration, determined by probe sampling in holes 
in the fill, would be made at the North and South Terminals to determine the 
extent of methane generation in the fill and establish the probability of 
existence of flammable concentrations of methane. Available data do not 
indicate the presence of flammable methane levels but are insufficient to 
give an adequate level of certainty to this conclusion. 

2. All building foundations would be designed to prevent the accumulation 
of methane under the buildings. 

3. All utilities installed under fill would be designed with provisions, 
such as air vents in underground electrical conduits below switches, to 
prevent methane accumulation in the lines. 

Settlement Mitigation 

Measure Incorporated in the Proposed Project 

1. The Port project would be constructed in accordance with recommendations 
of Cal i fornia-regi stered structural engineers and/or from geotechnical con- 
sultants pertaining to foundations, subsidence and earthquake safety. 



132 



Mitigation Measures 



Islais Creek Maritime Access 

Measures Incorporated in the Proposed Project 

1. The intertermi nal bridge would be a draw-bridge so that existing marine 
traffic could continue to use Islais Creek. 

2. If construction of the interterminal bridge would interfere with deli- 
veries to the copra processing facility west of the existing Third Street 
Bridge, a temporary pipeline would be installed to provide for delivery to 
the facility during construction. This pipeline could become permanent. 

Historic Resources Mitigation 

Measure Incorporated in the Proposed Project 

1. Should evidence of cultural or historic artifacts of significance be 
found during project excavation, the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) and 
the President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board would be notified 
immediately, and any excavation which could damage such artifacts would be 
halted. The project sponsor would select an archaeologist or other expert 
to help the Office of Environmental Review determine the significance of the 
find and whether feasibl e measures , including appropriate security measures, 
could be implemented to preserve or recover such artifacts. The ERO would 
then recommend specific mitigations measures, if necessary. 

Copies of reports prepared according to thi s mi tigation measure would be sent 
to the California Archaeological Site Survey Office at Sonoma State Univer- 
sity. Excavation or construction that might damage the discovered cultural 
resources would be suspended for a maximum of four weeks (cumulatively for 
all instances that the ERO has required a delay in excavation or construc- 
tion) to permit inspection, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate. 

133 



Mi tigation Measures 



Sewage Mitigation 



Measure Incl uded i n Proposed Project 

1. Construction at the North Terminal would be coordinated with Clean Water 
Program construction activities related to the sewer outfall passing under 
the Terminal to minimize construction disruption to Terminal activities and 
interference of either construction activity with the other. 

Measure Under Considerati on 

1. The Port would consider installation of shoreside sewerage connection 
facilities at the SFCT for commercial vessels to insure landside disposal 
of sewage. Most of the vessels that call at the SFCT are foreign flag ves- 
sels and it is unclear whether the United States can require them to in- 
stall compatible fittings for sewage pumpout. The installation of such fa- 
cilities would cost about $50,000 per berth. 3 The Regional Water Quality 
Control Board has requested the Federal Government to regulate waste dis- 
charges from vessels under the jurisdiction of foreign nations and the Uni- 
ted States Government and has requested that BCDC require dockside sewers 
to receive wastes from all vessel s.^ 

NOTES -- MITIGATION MEASURES: 

1. A plan for this optimization has been developed by the Department of Pub- 
lic Works and is now going through the approval process. Scott Shoaf, 
DPW TRaffic Engineering, telephone conversation of September 24, 1985. 

2. Paul Andrews, District Director of the U. S. Customs Service, telephone 
conversation of October 8, 1985. 

3. Velio Kiisk, Port Engineer, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversa- 
tion of August 6, 1985. 

4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay 
Region, Resolution No. 70-1, available for public review at the Depart- 
ment of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 



134 



CHAPTER VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 
AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 



This chapter is subject to final determination by the City Planning Commis- 
sion as part of their certification process and will be revised, if neces- 
sary, to reflect the Commission's findings. 

Potential triggering of BAAQMD New Source Review by air pollutants emitted 
by diesel cargo cranes have been mitigated by a Port decision to use elec- 
tric cranes. No other probable significant environmental impacts from the 
proposed project have been identified. 

Should any net fill be determined to be involved in the project, BCDC would 
consider this to be significant if not mitigated. 



CHAPTER VII. ALTERNATIVES 



Alternative 1. No Project 
Description 

Existing container handling facilities at the SFCT would remain and no pub- 
lic access would be developed at Pier 98. 

Impacts 

Container cargo throughput at the SFCT would increase at a slower rate than 
with the proposed project. There would be more truck traffic on City 

135 



Alternatives 



streets, and nearby freeways would be at capacity for greater periods of time 
than with the proposed project. The freeways would be at capacity without 
this additional traffic. Fewer trains would carry containers from the ICTF, 
resulting in less train noise than with the proposed project. There would 
be less air pollution from cranes without the new 100 ft. cranes and more 
air emissions from trucks. The existing level of train/emergency vehicle 
conflict would increase less without the project than with it. No train 
movement notification procedure for the emergency services would be set up. 
No improved public open space would be provided at Pier 98. 

Reasons for Rejection 

Without the proposed project the SFCT would be less cost-effective and 
would be less attractive to shippers. The Port Commission has rejected 
this alternative because it would decrease future Port revenues. The public 
has supported the decision by a 1984 vote for bonds to finance most of 
Phase I development of the proposed project. 

Alternative 2: 2.5 Acre Parcel Purchase/ Addi tion at the North Terminal 
Description 

A 2.5 acre parcel, lot 3 on the south (Army Street) side of Assessor's 
Block 4310, bounded on the east and south by existing Port property, would 
be acquired by the Port for use for a redesigned entrance to the North Ter- 
minal and additional queueing space, see Figure 18, page 137, for location. 
The cost of this parcel would be about 2.5 million dollars. 

■ 

Impacts 

This alternative would remove all queueing trucks from Army Street, provide 

136 



Al ternatives 



Figure 18. Location of Additional Parcel Considered in 
Alternative 2 




more queueing space before the entrance to the North Terminal than can be 
be provided in the proposed alternative, and provide more space for layout 
of an optimal entrance to the North Terminal. The current tenant of the 
site, F. J. Burns Draying, which handles non-port-related construction 
materials, would have to relocate. 

Cargo throughput under this alternative would be the same as for the pro- 
posed project, therefore, impacts unrelated to queuing and business reloca- 
tion would be the same as for the proposed project. 

Reasons for Rejection 

The Port does not have funds for acquisition of this parcel now but may 
choose to acquire it at a later date. The decision would be made by the 
Port Commission on the basis of analysis of the effects of terminal rede- 

137 



Al ternatives 



sign on truck flow through and queueing at the entrance to the North Termi- 
nal after implementation of the proposed project. 

Alternative 3: A Fixed Bridge Over Islais Creek 

Descri ption 

The Port originally planned to install a fixed interterminal bridge over 
Islais Creek. This bridge would be in the same Illinois Street alignment 
as proposed for the drawbridge. 

Impacts 

A fixed bridge would close Islais Creek to navigation west of the bridge. 
This would require relocation of the Fire Department manifold on the east 
side of Third Street just south of the existing Third Street Bridge, which 
permits emergency pumping of Bay water by the fireboat into the Fire Depart- 
ment's Auxiliary Water Supply System. Permanent alternative means of deli- 
very to the copra processing plant west of the existing Third Street Bridge 
on the north side of Islais Creek would have to be provided, as well as 
alternative provision for stormy weather mooring of the fireboat, tugs and 
other boats that use Islais Creek during inclement weather. Closing Islais 
Creek would save the San Francisco Department of Public Works about $300,000 
per year in drawbridge maintenance and operation costs for the existing 
Third Street Bridge. 1 A fixed bridge would eliminate the potential effect 
of trucks, port packers and trains delaying opening of the drawbridge. 

Reasons for Rejection 

Initially the Port believed that the relatively higher cost of a drawbridge 
prohibited this option. After consultation with the Coast Guard, which 

138 



Al ternatives 



expressed a desire for maintenance of the existing navigability of Islais 
Creek, 2 consideration of the impacts of closing the western portion of 
Islais Creek to navigation, and further investigation of the relative costs 
of different types of bridges, Port staff decided to use a draw bridge. 



NOTES — ALTERNATIVES: 

1. Repair costs of $100,000 to $150,000 per year would be eliminated be- 
cause vessels would no longer run into bridge footings. Cost statement 
is based on a letter from Richard Cunningham, Superintendent, Bureau of 
Street & Sewer Repair, Department of Public Works, of March 28, 1985, 
available for public review in the project file at the Department of City 
Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

2. Wayne Till, Chief of Bridge Section, U.S. Coast Guard, meeting of June 
11, 1985. 



CHAPTER VIII. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 



EIR AUTHORS 



San Francisco Department of City Planning 

Office of Environmental Review 

450 McAllister Street, Fifth Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Environmental Review Officer: Barbara Sahm 
EIR Coordinator: Catherine Bauman 

EIR CONSULTANTS 



Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 
1390 Market Street, Suite 902 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Project Manager: Selina Bendix, Ph.D. 



139 



Authors and Persons Consulted 



EIR CONSULTANTS, Con't. 



Holton Associates 
1824 Fourth Street 
Berkeley, CA 94710 

Booker Holton, Ph.D. 

Wil liam Kanemoto 
Biological Impacts, Permits 

Wil 1 iam Marconi , P.E. 
101 Mountain Springs Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94114 
Transportation Impacts 

EIP Associates 

319 Eleventh Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Richard Pollack, Ph.D. 
Air Impacts 



Theresa Hughes & Associates 
5224 Kales Avenue 
Oakland, CA 94618 
Theresa Hughes 
Economics 



Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc, 
930 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Thomas S. Lillo 
Train Noise Impacts 



PROJECT SPONSOR 



Port of San Francisco 
Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Eugene L. Gartland, Executive 

Director 
Randal 1 S. Rossi , Ph.D. , 

Planning, Environmental, 

Regulatory Consultant 
Velio Kiisk, Port Engineer 
Ronald Stone, Director of Marketing 
Arthur M. Osborne, Director, 

Engineering and Maintenance 
Cliff Jarrard, P.E., Administrative 

Engineer 
James Read 

Lindbergh Low, Project Engineer 
W. Bowden, Chief Wharfinger 
Ski p Zel 1 er 
Louise Anderson 



General Consultant to Port 

Vi eke rman/Za chary /Mi 1 1 er 

330 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor 

Oakland, CA 94607 

M. John Vickerman, Jr., Pres, 
Eugene M. Blazick, Project Mgr. 
Kenneth Hughes 



ICTF Consultant 

Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, 
Inc. 

417 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Ronald N. Zimmer, P.E. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO STAFF CONSULTED 



Department of Public Works Fire Department 

2323 Army Street 260 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 San Francisco, CA 94102 

David Conci, Sr. Stationary Engr. Deputy Chief Gerald Cullen 

Lt. William Utikol 
Michael Patterson, Port Fire 
Marshal 1 



140 



Authors and Persons Consulted 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO STAFF CONSULTED, Con't 



Deputy Mayor James Lazarus 
City Hall 

San Franci sco, CA 94102 



Division of Traffic Engineering 
460 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Scott Shoaf 

Stanley Chin 

Police Department 

Potrero Station 

2300 Third Street 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Officer Michael Mahoney 



San Francisco Health Department 

101 Grove Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Robert Navarro, Chief Paramedic 

Clean Water Program 

770 Golden Gate 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Harold Coffee 

Louis Olivari 



OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 



BAAQMD 

939 Ellis Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
B. de Boisblanc 

BCDC 

30 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Philip Kern 

Margit Hind 

Bridge Section 
U.S. Coast Guard 
Bldg. 51-3 
Government Island 
Alameda, CA 94501 

Wayne Till 

Rose Guerra 

MTC 

Metrocenter 
101 8th Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Jeff Georgevich 

California Dept. of Fish & Game 
411 Burgess Drive 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 

T. Wooster 

Phillip Swartzell 



TNT Marine 
Pier 46B 

San Francisco, CA 
Dick McKnight 

Westar Towboat Service 
Pier 46B 

San Franci sco, CA 
Mary McMillan 



California Stevedore & Ballast Co. 
501 Army Street 
San Francisco, CA 

Ian Back 

Tom Kohl er 



Stevedoring Services of America 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 
Peter Klestoff 



Dillingham Corp. 

2 Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, CA 



141 



Authors and Persons Consulted 



OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED, Con't. 



Port of Oakland 
66 Jack London Square 
Oakland, CA 
Ray Boyle 

Port of Richmond 
P.O. Box 4046 
Richmond, CA 94804 
Sal Bose, Director 

Port of Benicia 
P.O. Box 315 
Benicia, CA 94510 
Adam Vincent 



Faustug Corp. 
Pier 15 

San Francisco, CA 
Tom Faust 

Emcon Associates 
90 Archer Street 
San Jose, CA 95112 
Robert Von Hewit 

PG&E 

245 Market Street 
San Franci sco, CA 
Ernest Braun 



Postal Service 
Industrial Engineering Dept 
1300 Evans Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 
Roger Parvin 

U.S. Customs Service 
District Director 
San Francisco, CA 
Paul Andrews 

Western Tug & Barge Co. 
Pier 9 

San Francisco, CA 
Dennis Kelfoil 

Baker Commodities, Inc. 
Pier 92 

San Francisco, CA 
Gene Riddle 



Harbor Tug & Barge 
Pier 9 

San Francisco, CA 
Brian Lodge 



Fukada Salvage & Marine Works Co. Ltd 
2579 Heatherstone Drive 
San Rafael, CA 94903 
Gloria Kaga 

American Navigation 
Pier 26 

San Francisco, CA 
Kelley Fallon 

S.F. Community Recyclers 
796 Elizabeth Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Jane 01 sen 



Tidewater Sand & Gravel 
4501 Tidewater Ave. 
Oakland, CA 94601 
Mrs. E.P. Seaborn 



Co, 



Continental Grain Co. 
P.O. Box 24096 
San Francisco, CA 94124 
Don Strenik 



American President Lines 
1395 Middle Harbor Road 
Oakland, CA 
Tim Titus 



142 



DISTRIBUTION LIST 



**FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES** 



U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
211 Main St. 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn : Calvin Fong 

U.S. Coast Guard (2 cc.) 
Bldg. 51-3 
Government Island 
Alameda, CA 94501 
Attn : Wayne Til 1 

U.S. Customs Service 

Di strict Office 

555 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Paul Andrews 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
Sacramento Endangered Species Office 
1230 N St., 14th Floor 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : Jack Williams, Section Chief 

CA Air Resources Board 
General Projects Section 
P.O. Box 2815 
Sacramento, CA 95812 
Attn : Don Rake 

CA Archaeol ogical Survey 
Northwest Information Center 
Dept. of Anthropology 
Sonoma State University 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 
Attn : Christian Gerike 

CA Department of Boating & 

Waterways 
1629 S St. 

Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : William H. Ivers, 
Director 

CA Department of Fish & Game 
411 Burgess Drive 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 
Attn : Philip Swartzell 



Public Utilities Commission 
Railroad Operations & Safety Branch 
926 "J" Street, Room 1408 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : Michael Burke 

Cal Trans 

P.O. Box 7310 

San Francisco, CA 94120 

Attn : Wallace J. Rothbart, 

District CEQA Coordinator 

David Tannehill 

State Lands Commission 
1807 13th St. 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : Rosanna Horton 

State Office of Intergovernmental 

Management (10 cc.) 
State Clearinghouse 
1400 10th St. 
Sacramento, CA 95819 



**MEMBERS OF CONGRESS** 



Representative Barbara Boxer 

901 Irwin St. 

San Rafael, CA 94901 

Representative Sal a Burton 
450 Golden Gate Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Senator Alan Cranston 
45 Polk St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Senator Pete Wil son 
450 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



**REGI0NAL AGENCIES** 



ABAG 

P.O. Box 2050 
Oakland, CA 94604 
Attn: Ann Berry 



143 



BAAQMD 

939 Ellis St. 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Attn : Irwin Mussen 

BCDC 

30 Van Ness Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn: Phil Kern 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission 
101 8th St. 
Oakland, CA 94607 

Attn : Dennis Faye, Jeff Georgevich 
RWQCB 

1111 Jackson St., 6040 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Attn : Steven I. Morse 
Senior Engineer 



**CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO** 



Bureau of Building Inspection 

450 McAllister St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Frank Lew, Acting Superintendent 

City Attorney's Office 
Room 206, City Hall 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Paula Jesson, Deputy City 
Attorney 

Clean Water Program 
770 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Harold Coffee 

Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 

450 McAllister St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Jonathan Malone 

Mayor's Economic Development Council 

100 Larkin St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : William Witte, Director 

Public Utilities Commission 
949 Presidio Ave., Room 150 
San Francisco, CA 94115 
Attn : Tom Jordan, Director 
Bureau of Services 



Public Utilities Commission 
Bureau of Energy Conservation 
110 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Joseph Johnson, Director 

Recreation & Park Department 

McLaren Lodge 

Golden Gate Park 

Fell and Stanyan Streets 

San Franci sco, CA 94117 

Attn : Deborah Lerner 

San Francisco City Planning Commission 

450 McAllister St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Lee Woods 

Toby Rosenblatt, President 

Richard Allen 

Susan Bierman 

Roger Boas 

Bernice Hemphil 1 

Norman Karasick, Alt. 

Dr. Yoshio Nakashima 

Douglas G. Wright, Alt. 

San Francisco Port Commission 

Port of San Francisco 

Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Dr. Arthur Coleman, President 

James Rudden, Vice President 

Anne W. Halsted 

James R. Herman 

Gordon Lau 

San Francisco Department of Public Works 

Bureau of Engineering 

Division of Streets and Highways 

45 Hyde St., Room 222 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Tim Mol inare 

San Francisco Department of Public Works 
Mechanical Engineering Section 
45 Hyde St., Room 222 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Vijay K. Gupta 

San Francisco Department of Public Works 
Traffic Engineering Division 
460 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Scott Shoaf 



144 



SFFD 

Div. of Planning and Research 
260 Golden Gate Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Chief Gerald Cullen 

SFFD 

Div. of Fire Protection 

& Investigation 
260 Golden Gate Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Lt. Michael Patterson 

San Francisco Municipal Railway 
MUNI Planning Division 
949 Presidio Ave., Room 204 
San Francisco, CA 94115 
Attn : Peter Straus 

San Francisco Real Estate Department 
25 Van Ness Ave, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Wallace Wortman, 

Director of Property 

Water Department 

San Francisco City Distribution Division 
425 Mason St. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : James Cooney, 
Manager 



** NEIGHBORING CITIES ** 



City of Atherton 

91 Ashfield Road 

Atherton, CA 94025 

Attn : Ross Hubbard, City Manager 

Belmont Planning Department 
1365 5th Ave. 
Belmont, CA 94002 
Attn : Elaine Costello, 
Planning Director 

Brisbane Planning Department 
44 Vi sitation Ave. 
Brisbane, CA 94005 
Attn : Jane McCoy 

Burlingame Planning Department 
501 Primrose Road 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
Attn : Margaret Monroe, 
Planning Director 



Menlo Park Planning Department 
701 Laurel St. 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 
Attn : Ken Clark, Planner 

Mill brae Planning Department 
601 Magnol ia Ave. 
Mill brae, CA 94030 
Attn : Ed Moore, 

Planning Consultant 

Mountain View Planning Department 
444 Castro St. 
Mountain View, CA 94039 
Attn : Gail Collins, 
Urban Planner 

Palo Alto Planning Department 
P.O. Box 10250 
Palo Alto, CA 94303 
Attn : Sarah Cheney, 

Associate Planner 

Redwood City Planning Department 
1017 Middlefield Rd. 
Redwood City, CA 94063 
Attn : Joel Patterson, 
Senior Panner 

San Bruno Planning Department 
567 El Camino Real 
San Bruno, CA 94066 
Attn : Mi ke Brimer 

Director of Planning & Building 

City of San Carlos 
666 Elm St. 
San Carlos, CA 94070 
Attn : Warren Shafer, 
City Manager 

San Jose Planning Department 
801 North 1st St., Room 400 
San Jose, CA 95110 
Attn: Brad Pearson, 
Senior PI anner 

City of San Mateo Planning Department 
330 West 20th St. 
San Mateo, CA 94403 
Attn : Barbara Heinrich, 

Environmental Planner 

City of Santa Clara Planning Department 
1500 Warburton 
Santa Clara, CA 95050 
Attn : Art Henriques, 
Senior PI anner 



145 



South San Francisco Planning Department 
P.O. Box 711 

South San Francisco, CA 94083 
Attn : Jean T. Smith, 

PI anning Di rector 

Sunnyvale Planning Department 
P.O. Box 60607 
Sunnyvale, CA 94088 
Attn : Ann Draper, 

Planning Officer 



**GR0UPS AND INDIVIDUALS** 



AIA 

San Francisco Chapter 

790 Market St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

AFL-CIO 

National Maritime Union 

91 Drumm St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Alice Suet Yee Barkley 
Bennet & Barkl ey 
100 California St., Suite 970 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Bay Area Council 

348 World Trade Center 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Al bert Beck 

c/o Geography Department 
California State University, Chico 
Chico, CA 95929 

Tony Blaczek 

Finance Dept. Coldwell Banker 
1 Embarcadero Center, 23rd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Georgia Brittan 

870 Market St., Room 1119 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Brobeck, Phleger, Harrison 
1 Market Plaza 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn : Susan R. Diamond 

Michael Buck 
1333 35th Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94122 



Dale Carlson 

369 Pine St., #800 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

Charter Commercial Brokerage Company 

Market Research Dept. 

101 California St., Suite 900 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Chickering & Gregory 

3 Embarcadero Center, 23rd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Kent Soul e 

Coalition for San Francisco Neighbors 

Doris Murphy 

175 Yukon St. 

San Francisco, CA 94114 

Joseph Cortiz 
2853 22nd St. 
San Francisco, CA 94110 

Cushman & Wakefield of California 

Bank of America Center 

555 California St., Suite 2700 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Attn : James A. Hogland 

Calvin Dare 

Cushman & Wakefield 

555 California St., Suite 2700 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Alexis Diamondidis 

#58 Varennes 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

James S. Di el Schneider 

258-B Red Rock Way 

San Francisco, CA 94131 

DKS Associates 

1419 Broadway, Suite 700 

Oakland, CA 94612-2069 

Rita Dorst 

RB International Services 
9 Boston Ship Plaza 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Downtown Association 

582 Market St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

• 

Michael Dyett 
Bl ayney-Dyett 
70 Zoe St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 



146 



EIP Associates 

319 11th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn : Cathleen Galloway Brown 

Environmental Planning & Research, Inc 

649 Front St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Leslie de Boer 

Environmental Science Associates 

760 Harrison St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Attn : Avril Tolley 

Farella, Braun & Martel 
235 Montgomery St. 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn : Sandra Lambert 

Friends of the Earth 
1045 San some St. #404 
San Francisco CA 94111 
Attn : Connie Parish 

The Foundation for San Fran- 
cisco's Architectural Heritage 
2007 Franklin St. 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Friends of the Port 
Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Janet H. Davis 

Executive Director 

Fuller Commercial Brokerage 
353 Sacramento St., Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Kenneth T. Sproul 

Thomas N. Gal ante, President 
Bayview Merchants Association Inc. 
4947 3rd St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Gensler & Associates 
550 Kearney St. 
San Franci sco, CA 94103 
Attn : Jean Win slow 

Charles T. Gill 
The Aspen Group West, Inc. 
505 Sansome St., Suite 1005 
San Francisco, CA 94111 



Goldfarb & Litman 
491 9th St. 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Attn : Paula Crow 

Annette M. Granucci 
Commercial News Publishing Co. 
125 12th St. 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Gruen, Gruen & Associates 

564 Howard St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Donald Head & Associates 
109 Minna St., #293 
San Francisco, CA 94105 

Val erie Hersey 

Munsell Brown 

950 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Sue Hestor 

4536 20th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94114 

ILWU 

1188 Frankl in St. 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

ILWU Ship Scalers & Painters Local 

501 Army St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

ILWU Warehouse Local 6 
255 9th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

ILWU Longshoremen Local 10 

400 North Point 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

ILWU Ship Clerks Local 34 
4 Berry St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

ILWU Gatemen & Watchmen Local 75 
4 Berry St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

ILWU Drivers Local 85 

459 Fulton St. 

San Francisco. CA 94102 



147 



I LWU Walking Bosses Local 91 
4 Berry St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Teamsters Joint Council #7 

400 Alabama St. 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Marcella Jacobson 
2995 Summit Dr. 
Hillsborough, CA 94010 

Karl F. Kimbrough 

c/o Private Industry Council 

of San Franci sco 
1748 Market St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Lee & Fan 

Architecture & Planning, Inc. 
580 Market St., Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94101 
Attn : Robert Fan, Jr. 

Carole Lester 

Lawyers Title Company of San Francisco 

1 Cal i form' a St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Marathon U.S. Realties, Inc. 
595 Market St., Suite 1330 
San Franci sco, CA 94105 
Attn : Rolf Wheeler 

Bruce Marshal 1 

San Francsico MUNI Coalition 
600 Montgomery St., 13th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Oceanic Society 

San Francisco Bay Chapter 

Fort Mason 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Page, Anderson & Turnbull 

364 Bush St. 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 
P.O. Box 7880 
San Francisco, CA 94120 
Attn: Susan Pearlstine 



Planning Analysis & Development 
530 Chestnut St. 
San Francisco, CA 94133 
Attn : Gloria Root 

Mrs. G. Bland Piatt 

310 Walnut St. 

San Francisco, CA 94118 

Neville Price & Associates 
25 Ecker Square, Suite 1050 
San Francisco, CA 94105 

Bruce Raful 
Rothschild Cappiel 1 o 
332 Pine St., Suite 511 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Research & Decisions Corporation 
375 Sutter St. Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn : Deborah Mc Namee 

Donald W. Rice 

Port of Los Angeles 

425 South Pal os Verdes St. 

P.O. Box 151 

San Pedro, CA 90733-0151 

San Francisco Bar Pilots Assn. 

P.O. Box 26409 

San Francisco, CA 94126 

Attn : Captain William W. Meyer 

San Francisco Building & Construction 

Trades Council 
400 Alabama St., Room 100 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Attn : Stanley Smith 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 

465 Cali form' a St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Attn : Richard Morten 

San Francisco Ecology Center 

13 Columbus Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

San Francisco Labor Council 
1855 Folsom St. 
San Francsico, CA 94103 
Attn : Bernard Speckman 



148 



San Francisco Planning & Urban 

Research Association 
312 Sutter St. 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn : Waterfront Committee: 

Donald Paul Black 

Andrew Butler 

David Clark 

Steve Downs 

Boris Dramov 

Bill Duval 

Rebecca Evans 

Ruth Gravanis 

Jeffrey Grote 

Bryan Grunwald 

Sarah Hal lam 

Joy Hecht 

Bob Isaacson 

El len Johnk 

Lisa Klairmont 

Michael Marston 

Bruce Race 

Jim Ricereto 

S.D. Sicotte 

Thomas J. Tibbets 

San Francisco Tomorrow 
942 Market, Room 505 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Tony Ki 1 roy 

John M. Sanger, Petti t & Martin 
101 California St., 35th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Save San Francisco Bay Assn. 
2140 Shattuck Ave. 
Berkeley, CA 94707 

Sedway Cooke Associates 
350 Pacific Ave., 3rd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Richard Seeley & Co. 
1814 Franklin St., #503 
Oakland, CA 94612 

Shartsis Freise & Ginsburg 
255 California St., 9th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Dave Kremer 

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 
1 Maritime PI aza 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Jerry Goldberg 



Robert Snook 

Wei 1 s Fargo Bank 

475 Langton St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Mark R. Sol it 
Embarcadero Center, Ltd. 
4 Embarcadero, Suite 2600 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

South of Market Alliance 

74 Langton St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Wayne E. Stiefvater, President 

Appraisal Consultants 

701 Sutter St. 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Robert S. Tandler 

Steefel , Levitt & Weiss 

1 Embarcadero Center, 29th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Carol Tat urn 

Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation 

for Community Improvement 
5033 3rd St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Roger Teter 

Cahill Construction Company 
425 California St., Suite 2300 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Jerry Tone, Loan Officer 
Real Estate Industries Group 
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 
475 Sansome St., 19th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Timothy Tosta 

Tosta & Browning Law Corporation 
785 Market St., 14th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Kathy Van Velsor 

19 Chula Lane 

San Franci sco, CA 94114 

Stephen Weiker 

899 Pine St., #1610 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Calvin Welch 

Council of Community Housing 

Organi zation 
409 Clayton St. 
San Francisco, CA 94117 



Howard Wexler 

235 Montgomery St., 7th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Eunice Wi 1 1 ette 

1323 Gilman Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Marie Zeller 

Whi si er-Patri 

590 Folsom St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 



**ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS** 



Air Filters Sales & Serv. Co. 

1500 Davidson Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Baker Commodities 
Pier 92 

San Francisco, CA 94124 
Attn : Gene Riddle 

William Banker 

351 California St. 

San Francisco, Ca 94104 

Robert & Nancy Berke 

2227 31st Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94116 

Bonelli Enterprises 

101 Cargo Way 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Armand & Betty Bosc 

1570 Burke Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Ray Bright 

1833 20th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Broadway Mechanical Contractors 

1790 Yosemite Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Murray G. Cole 

1650 Davidson Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 



California Stevedore & Ballast 
501 Army St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 
Attn : Tom Kohler 

Continental Grain Company 

Bay View Station 

P.O. Box 24096 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Attn : Don Strenik 

Crow-Spieker San Carlos etc. 
2180 Sand Hill Rd. 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Rick & Linda Der 

50 Mendel 1 St. #10 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Kim Dong & Sun Kyung 
82 Penhurst Ave. 
Daly City, CA 94015 

E.G. & K.L. Ekren 

50 Mendel 1 ST. #12 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Federated Metals Corp. 

1901 Army St. 

San Francisco, Ca 94124 

Russell & Evelyn Fieber TRS 
c/o Callan, Stroud, & Dale 
155 Sansome St. 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Victor Furtado 
PG&E 

77 Beale St. 

San Francisco, CA 94106 

Martin & John Gaehwiler 

1700 Illinois St. 

San Francisco, Ca 94124 

Eugene Garfinkle 

300 Montgomery St. #1060 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Golden West Broadcasters 
950 Cal i fornia Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn : James Meyers, 

Vice President & General Manager 

■ 

Granex Corp. USA 

1301 Army St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 



150 



Grosjean Callaghan Inv. Co. 

1875 Marin St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Thomas A. Guilfoy 

1234 Howard St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Habenicht & Howlett 

888 Marin St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Long-Chang Hsaio & Fei Feng 

562 39th Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Victor Johnson 
1430 16th Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94122 

Wen Liao & Kang Mei Kay 
20815 NW Chiloquin Ct. 
Portland, OR 97229 

Man-U Imports 

50 Mendel! St. #7 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Gino & Premina Mazini 
1612 Bal boa Way 
Burlingame, CA 94010 

Richard B. Meyer et al . 

1580 Custer Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mizono Brothers 
1575 Burke Ave. 
San Francisco, Ca 94124 

Larry Montarano 

P.O. Box 31572 

San Francisco, CA 94131 

Harold & Jo Ann Morgan 

1550 Evans Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Joseph Musto Sons Co. 

1280 Columbus Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Occidental Life Insurance 

Company of California 
P.O. Box 27003 
Richmond, VA 32261 



Emily Peck 

3303 Wilshire Blvd. 

Los Angeles, CA 90010 

Joseph Ratto 
640 Army St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Reynolds Metals Co. 
P.O. Box 27003 
Richmond, VA 23261 

Robert Salvarezza 
110 Braener Dr. 
Hillsborough, CA 94010 

San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency 

939 Ellis St., 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
Attn : Thomas Conrad 

William & Susan Sanchez 

1500 Burke Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

San Francisco Community Recyclers 

796 Elizabeth St. 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Attn : Jane 01 sen 

San Francisco Land Improvement Co. 
1 Santa Fe PZ #316 
5200 East Sheila St. 
Los Angeles, CA 90040 

John & Ruth Smith 
50 Mendel 1 St. #5 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

William & Claire Spencer 
1450 Buckingham Way 
Hillsborough, CA 94010 

Tidewater Sand & Gravel Co. 
4501 Tidewater Ave. 
Oakland, CA 94601 
Attn : Ms. E.P. Seaborn 

Un ion Paci fic Rail road 
% R.W. Ridinger 
1717 Middle Harbor Rd. 
Oakland, CA 94607 

Pi ng Leung Wong 

1032 Silver Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94134 



151 



**MEDIA** 



San Francisco Bay Guardian 

2700 19th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Attn ; Patrick Douglas, City Editor 

San Francisco Business Journal 
635 Sacramento St., Suite 310 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Kirstin R. Downey 

San Francisco Chronicle 
925 Mission St. 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Evelyn Hsu 

San Francisco Examiner 
110 5th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Gerald Adams 

San Francisco Progress 
851 Howard St. 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : E. Cahill Mahoney 

The Sun Reporter 

1366 Turk St. 

San Francisco, CA 94115 

Tenderloin Times 
146 Leavenworth St. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Rob Waters 



Environmental Protection Agency Library 

215 Fremont St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Attn : Jean Circiello 

Jonsson Library of Government Documents 
Stanford University Libraries 
State & Local Documents Division 
Stanford, CA 94305 

Government Publications Department 

San Francisco State University 

1630 Holloway Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94132 

Attn : Dora Ng 

Hastings College of the Law - Library 
200 Mc Al lister St. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Institute of Governmental Studies 
1209 Moses Hal 1 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94820 



**L IBRARIES** 



Documents Library 
City Library - Civic Center 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Faith Van Liere 

City Library - Waden Branch 

5075 3rd St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

City Library - Potrero Branch 

1616 20th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 



152 



Appendices 



CHAPTER X. APPENDICES 



Appendix A. Initial Study A-2 

Appendix B. Traffic Level of Service Definitions A-38 

Appendix C. San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary A-39 

Appendix D. Liner Services Calling the SFCT A-41 




Appendices 

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING cluster 



NOTICE THAT AN 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 
IS DETERMINED TO BE REQUIRED 



STREET • SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 941 ojj ^ 

* 

I 



Date ot tms huulc. 



Agency Contact Penson^Cat^Ba^ 



Project Title: 85.123E 
San Francisco Container Terminal 
Modernization 



Project Sponsor: Port of San Francisco 




attached 



the project, which is attached. 



ER5 6/85 



BWS:eh 
8362A 



A-2 



Appendices 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/SOUTHERN WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS 
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY 
85.123E 

June 21, 1985 

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION * 

The Port of San Francisco proposes to modernize its container handling 
facilities along the southern waterfront in the area of the North and South 
Container Terminals (formerly Pier 80/Army Street Terminal and Piers 94-96, 
respectively) . 

Improvements are being proposed for the San Francisco Container Terminal 
("'"SFCT) in order to accommodate projected demands of shipping lines now using 
SFCT facilities and to maintain the Port's current market share of ''"con- 
tainer cargo. 

The North Container Terminal is a 69-acre site on all of Assessor's Block 
4304. The South Terminal is approximately 160 acres on all of Assessor's 
Block 4502A. Both sites are active port terminals in an M-2 (Heavy Indus- 
trial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

The Port is proposing three cargo handling facility improvements and a 
waterfront open space area in two phases. The location of the existing and 
proposed facilities is shown on figures 1-4 on pages 3-6 (pp. A-5 - A-8). 

Phase I (see Figure 3, page 5) [Page A-7 in this EIR]: 

-Modernization of the North Terminal into a full container cargo 
facility with three container ''"berths and one "'"combination berth by 
demolishing two cargo sheds (approximately 400,000 sq. ft. total), 

* Please refer to the glossary located on the inside of the front and back 
covers of this DEIR for definitions of terms used throughout this study. 
Terms defined in the glossary are marked with a daggar (t) at first use. 

A-3 



Appendices 



releveling the terminal yard, improving "^backland area for container 
storage, installation of five new container cranes (three of them 
replacing existing, smaller cranes) and container retrieval equip- 
ment, construction of two 4,000 sq. ft. buildings for use by long- 
shoremen and shipping clerks, and a new entrance gate. No new 
berths would be constructed; one existing "^breakbulk terminal would 
be converted to a container terminal. Improvements are designed to 
enable this terminal to handle existing "'"throughput more efficiently. 

- A fixed bridge across Islais Creek, extending Illinois Street south- 
wards to join the North and South Terminals, to expedite rail and 
truck trips between the two terminals and to keep short-haul traffic 
off city streets. 

- A permanent "^Intermodal Container Transfer Facility ("^ICTF) in the 
South Terminal to provide the Port with direct rail access for "hand- 
bridge movement of containers ("^COFC and ^TOFC). Facilities would 
include a 100,000 sq. ft. container freight station (*CFS) and a new 
entrance gate complex. 

- an 11-acre waterfront site (Pier 98) dedicated to public access, 
recreation and open space. 

Phase II (see Figure 4, page 6) [Page A-8 in this EIR]: 

- addition of two container berths along the south side of Islais Creek, 
through conversion of an existing "'"break bulk berth and addition of a 
new berth, and installation of four new container cranes. Some 
existing fill on the south side of fslais Creek would be removed. 

• $ 
A-4 




A-6 



Appendices 




A-7 



Appendices 




Appendices 



II. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 
Significant Effects 

Some of the effects that would be generated by the proposed project could be 
significant. Impacts that require further analysis in an EIR are: 

Land use effects of closing the Islais Creek channel west of Third 

Street as a navigable waterway. 

Increased truck and train trips to and from the site in relation 
to traffic flow and circulation patterns; increased parking 
demand. 

° Project transportation-generated air quality effects. 
° Effects on Bay wildlife including endangered species. 
Potential water quality impacts of removal of existing fill from 

the south side of Islais Creek. 
° Cumulative project-rel ated impacts. 

° Potential safety hazards from methane released by fill under the 
site. 

Insignificant Effects 

Some environmental effects would either be insignificant or would be miti- 
gated through measures incorporated into the project design. These require 
no further environmental analysis and will not be addressed in the EIR. 

Popul ation : No housing would be displaced. Employment generation would be 
up to about 100 jobs and would not create a substantial demand for new 
housi ng. 



A-9 



Appendices 



Utilities/Public Services : Increased demand for public services and utili- 
ties attributable to the proposed project would not require additional 
employees or expansion of existing utility facilities. 

Geology and Seismic Hazards : Potential problems of development on landfill 
would be mitigated to insignificance by compliance with the recommendations 
resulting from site-specific geotechnical investigations. 

Water Quality : No surface water or water supplies would be affected. Bay 
waters would not be substantially affected by the increase in ship calls or 
the dredging of Islais Creek. Runoff from impervious surfaces would 
increase, but not significantly in comparison to the existing setting. 

Hazards : The project would not be affected by hazardous land uses. An 
evacuation and emergency response plan would be developed by the project 
sponsor as part of the project. No change in the proportion of hazardous 
cargo handled is expected. 

Energy : Increased energy consumption on-site would result from diesel and 
gasoline fuel use by new container crane and yard equipment. Off-site 
energy use would result from additional truck, rail and ship cargo movement. 
A shift of some trips from truck to rail would result in increased energy 
efficiency per unit of cargo handled and a net decrease in energy consump- 
tion by Pacific Coast shipping activities. 

Cultural : The project site rests entirely on Bay fill. Most of the fill 
has been placed since 1960. The probability of encountering cultural 
resources during construction would be limited. The project sponsor has 
included a mitigation measure addressing this potential impact. 



A-10 



Appendices 



A. COMPATABILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING 

AND PLANS Not Applicable Discussed 

1. Discuss any variances, special 

authorizations, or change proposed 
to the City Planning Code or Zoning 

Map, if applicable. X 



*2. Discuss any conflicts with the 

Comprehensive Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco, if applicable. 



*3. Discuss any conflicts with any other 
adopted environmental plans and goals 

of the City or Region, if applicable. X 

The project would comply with Objective 5 of the Commerce and Industry 
Element, Comprehensive Plan of the City and County of San Francisco, "Realize 
San Francisco's full maritime potential." (page 18). Modernization of 
existing port facilities and establishment of the Pier 98 public access area 
would implement Policy 1, "Develop and implement a comprehensive long-range 
maritime development program for the Port," by increasing the efficiency 
and lowering the cost of goods movement. Policy 2, "Focus investment on 
those Port features in which San Francisco has a natural advantage. Create 
competitive advantages by providing more cost efficient freight handling 
facilities," would be implemented by improvement of facilities associated 
with natural deep water access appropriate for larger cargo vessels and 
improving cost efficiency of freight handling facilities. Policy 8, "En- 
courage maritime activity which complements visitor activity and resi- 
dent recreation," would be implemented through development of the public 
Bay access facilities at Pier 98. 

The overall goal of the Central Waterfront Plan of the Comprehensive Plan 
"is to create in the Central Waterfront area a physical and economic envi- 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 

A-ll 



Appendices 



ronment conducive to the retention and expansion of San Francisco's indus- 
trial and maritime activities." (page 16). The proposed project would con- 
form to Land Use Objective 1, "Strengthen and expand land uses essential to 
realizing the economic potential of the Central Waterfront." Modernization 
of container facilities would permit intensification of existing cargo 
handling activity in conformance with Land Use Policy 1, "Encourage the 
intensification and expansion of industrial and maritime uses." No conver- 
sion to nonmaritime-related land use would be involved in the project, in 
conformity with Policy 2, "Preserve and protect the Central Waterfront area 
as a land base for San Francisco industry. Prevent the conversion of land 
needed for industrial or maritime activity to non-industrial use." Present 
use of Islais Creek for anchorage west of the new bridge, some of it illegal, 
by some tow boats, barges and fishing boats would cease. 

Selection of a development configuration avoiding unstable fill and min- 
imizing new Bay fill would implement Policy 3, "Promote new development 
which has minimal adverse environmental consequences..." 

The project would implement the Central Waterfront Plan Maritime Objective 
to "Retain and expand maritime activity along the Central Waterfront." 
Retention of cargo facilities at the North Terminal would be in accordance 
with Policy 1, "Retain all existing maritime general cargo facilities along 
the Central Waterfront (Piers 48, 50, 70, and 80)." Modernization of faci- 
lities would conform to Policy 3, "Encourage the expansion and moderniza- 
tion of maritime cargo handling facilities and the development of container 
facilities along the. Central Waterfront." 

The ICTF would implement Central Waterfront Plan Transportation Objective 
1, "Improve the accessibility of the Central Waterfront," Policy 6, "Pro- 

A-12 



Appendices 



vide adequate rail and truck access to all maritime piers." The new bridge 
across Islais Creek to provide improved movement between the North and 
South Terminals would implement Transportation Objective 2, "Improve Trans- 
portation conditions within the Central Waterfront." Cargo handling acti- 
vities would be visible from the Pier 98 public access area in conformity 
with the Central Waterfront Plan Recreation and Open Space Objective, 
"Provide public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline," 
Policy 3, "Provide public overlooks, viewing areas, and open spaces with 
convenient access in areas of maritime activity." 

Modernization of the North Terminal (Pier 80) would be in accordance with 
Central Waterfront Plan Islais Creek Area Objective 1, "Expand maritime 
activity in the Islais Creek area," Policy 1, "Continue to modernize Pier 
80 as a major general cargo facility." Elimination of the existing low 
level of maritime use of the west end of Islais Creek would not be in accor- 
dance with Islais Creek Area Objective 1 but would comply with Policy 1 
under this Objective by assisting in the modernization of Pier 80 as a gene- 
ral cargo facility. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City 
and County of San Francisco will not be discussed in the EIR. 

The project would be in conformity with the MTC/BCDC Seaport Plan designa- 
tion of the project site as a port priority use area for development of 
container terminals (page 29). By modernizing existing facilities the pro- 
ject would conform to the goals of the Seaport Plan to: "Provide for the 
efficient use of finite physical and fiscal resources consumed in develop- 
ing marine terminals." (page 1). The ICTF would follow the Seaport Plan's 
goal of providing "integrated and improved surface transportation facilities 
between San Francisco Bay ports and other regional transportation systems." 



A-13 



Appendices 



The project would not interfere with implementation of the BCDC Special Area 
Plan No. 1 Policies 1 and 2 for Islais Creek West of Third Street, "The south 
side of Islais Creek Channel west of the Third Street Bridge should be 
developed for public access and waterfront recreation as a public esplanade 
and viewing area" and "Limited development, preferably Bay-oriented commer- 
cial recreation, should be permitted on the south side of Islais Creek 
channel, provided it is incidental to public access and water-related rec- 
reation and does not obstruct public access." The view across the Islais 
Channel would change due to loss of access for moving vessels west of the 
new bridge. Compliance with the BCDC Bay Plan and the Special Area Plan 
will be discussed in the EIR. 

B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. 

1. Land Use . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Disrupt or divide the physical 
arrangement of an established 

community? X X 

b. Have any substantial impact upon 
the existing character of the 

vicinity? _X_ _X_ 

Modernization of Port facilities in an area already zoned for heavy indus- 
try would not have a substantial impact on the existing character of the 
vicinity nor would it disrupt any established communities. 

All construction proposed would take place within property under the juris- 
diction of the Port of San Francisco. Port property is bounded by indus- 
trial development to the west and San Francisco Bay to the east.' The main 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-14 



Appendices 



active maritime use on Islais Creek west of the Third Street bridge is a 
copra (coconut oil) processing plant that is proposed to be served by pipe- 
line from a berth on Islais Creek east of the Third Street bridge. This 
facility currently receives one shipment of oil every one to two months. 
Any illegally anchored houseboats west of the new bridge would be displaced 
or precluded from moving out of Islais Creek. Possible land and water use 
effects stemming from the closure of this waterway west of the proposed new 
bridge will be examined in the EIR. 

2. Visual Quality . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Have a substantial, demonstrable 

negative aesthetic effect? X X 

b. Substantially degrade or obstruct 
any scenic view or vista now observed 

from public areas? X X 

c. Generate obtrusive light or glare 
substantially impacting other 

properties? X X 

As both terminals are currently active cargo handling facilities and all 
improvements proposed would continue existing terminal operations within 
existing terminal boundaries and be located in an industrial area, there 
would not be a substantial negative aesthetic effect. This issue will not 
be discussed in the EIR. 

With the exception of the Third Street bridge, views of the project area of 
the Port and the adjacent Bay typically occur at distances of over one-half 
mile from the water's edge. The site is over one mile from higher eleva- 
tions and residential neighborhoods to the west and southwest. Removal of 
the 40 ft. high sheds at the North Terminal would increase views of the 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-15 



Appendices 



Bay; however, this would only be observable from points on Port property 
and from the immediate Third Street vicinity. New views opened up as a 
result of shed removal would be ephemeral, because stacks of containers 
would occupy the areas currently covered by the sheds. New views of the 
Bay and the Port would become accessible from the proposed public access on 
Pier 98. No futher analysis of views will be provided in the EIR. 

New light standards would be placed in the ICTF, in newly surfaced areas of 
the North Terminal and where pier sheds would be removed on the North Termi- 
nal. The increase in light would not be noticeable from the nearest resi- 
dential neighborhoods with a view of the Port, such as Potrero Hill and 
Hunters Point. This subject will not be covered in the EIR. 

3. Popul ation . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Induce substantial growth or concen- 
tration of population? X X 

*b. Displace a large number of people 
(involving either housing or 

employment)? X X 

c. Create a substantial demand for 

additional housing in San Francisco, 
or substantially reduce the housing 

supply? X X 



Existing operations at the North and South Terminals involve about 100 per- 
manent jobs (about 65 at North Terminal and 40 at South Terminal). When 
ships are being loaded and unloaded the total number of persons working 
goes to 250 (about 150 at North Terminal and 100 at South Terminal). This 
increase is due to the number of longshoremen hired by the terminal opera- 
tors on a day-to-day basis. Modernization of these terminals would result 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect, 

A-16 



Appendices 



in the addition of about 40 permanent jobs and about 100 part-time long- 
shoremen's jobs.l The number of these jobs has dwindled in San Francisco 
during the last two decades as a result of increases in more efficient 
^container cargo handling (a less labor-intensive activity than traditional 
"•"break bulk cargo) and of the decline of the City's historic market share 
of cargo. The trend to increased containerization of cargo will continue 
and would partially off-set the increases in jobs from the proposed pro- 
ject. Employment generation will not be further discussed in the EIR. 

No housing would be displaced by the project. If project-related job 
generation were not off-set, and if it is assumed that about 30% of both 
permanent and temporary new workers currently reside outside of San Fran- 
cisco and would desire to move in, 2 a demand for a maximum of 45 housing 
units would be created as a result of new employment generated by the 
project. Estimated housing demand in San Francisco for the five-year 
period 1982 - 1986 is a minimum of 15,000; 3 45 units would represent a 
maximum of about 0.2% of expected housing demand. This would not be a 
significant effect and this issue will not be discussed further in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. Northern terminal present employment estimates from Gene Blazek, Vicker- 
man*Zachary •Miller, consultants to the Port of San Francisco; Southern 
terminal estimates from Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, 
Operator of Pier 96, telephone conversations of May 1, 1985, 

2. The Downtown Plan EIR, EE 81.3, SCH 84032003, Table IV. D. 2, page IV. D. 4, 
shows that San Francisco residency varies inversely with socioeconomic 
status, ranging from 48.9% for Management/Technical to 82.4% for Hotel 
workers. Since the new port employment would be blue collar, their San 
Francisco residence rate would fall at about 70% on that scale. 

3. Residence Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the City and County of 
San Francisco, 1984, page 1-22. 



A-17 



Appendices 



4. Transportation/Ci rcul at ion . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Cause an increase in traffic which 
is substantial in relation to the 
existing traffic load and capacity 

of the street system? X X 



b. Interfere with existing transporta- 
tion systems, causing substantial 
alterations to circulation patterns 
or major traffic hazards? 

c. Cause a substantial increase in 
transit demand which cannot be 
accommodated by existing or pro- 
posed transit capacity? 

d. Cause a substantial increase in 
parking demand which cannot be 
accommodated by existing parking 
f acil i ties? 



The proposed project would increase truck and rail trips to and from the 
SFCT. An increase in "'"unit train trips to and from the ICTF could delay 
traffic along Third Street if train crossings were to occur during peak 
hours. The EIR will discuss traffic and circulation on surrounding streets 
as they relate to the operation of the terminals and the projected increase 
in throughput capability. 

Three MUNI bus lines serve the site vicinity: 15 Third which runs north/ 
south on Third Street adjacent to Port property and lines 19 and 44 which 
start at India Basin Industrial Park and travel north and northwest respec- 
tively across the City. Less than 5% of SFCT workers currently use public 
transit. 1 Assuming that this percentage might be doubled for new workers by 
an active campaign for use of public transit, a maximum of 12 new bus round 
trips per day would" occur. This increase in demand would not have a signifi 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect 

A-18 



Appendices 



cant effect on demand for MUNI bus service. This issue will not be discus- 
sed in the EIR. 

On-site parking is supplied by the terminal operators to all employees who 
drive. Longshoremen, who are hired on a daily basis, park outside the ter- 
minals in nearby lots and on adjacent streets. No parking shortages cur- 
rently exist outside of either terminal. 2 South Terminal parking would be 
consolidated in two lots (approximately 50 spaces) near the proposed 
entrance facility. No parking spaces would be displaced by the project. 
Parking demand by new employees will be discussed in the EIR. 

The cumulative impacts of increased truck and rail trips on traffic circu- 
lation patterns, transit and pedestrians will be discussed in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, telephone conversation 
of April 17, 1985. 

2. Ian Back, California Stevedore & Ballast Company, telephone conversa- 
tion of April 16, 1985. 



5. Noise . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Increase substantially the ambient 
noise levels for adjoining areas? 

b. Violate Title 25 Noise Insulation 
tion Standards, if applicable? 



c. Be substantially impacted by 
existing noise levels? 

Construction activities including excavation, pile driving and dredging 

would temporarily increase noise and would intermittently exceed ambient 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



X_ JL 
X_ N/A 

X 



A-19 



Appendices 



noise levels of 60-65 L dn in the site vicinity. The maximum pile driving 
noise level of 105 dBA would be audible over a background of 60 dBA for a 
distance of over two miles during construction where hills or major struc- 
tures did not interfere with noise transmission. 

The closest sensitive noise receptors, such as inhabitants of residential 
development, are located approximately one mile from the site at Hunters 
Point, beyond the PG&E Potrero Power Plant, or on lower Potrero Hill. The 
background noise level along Third Street, between Port property and Inter- 
state 280, is 75 dBA; the level at Interstate 280 is 80 dBA. Pile dri- 
ving could be heard above a background of 75 dBA for a distance of about a 
mile; over a background of 80 for about 3200 feet. Pile driving would 
take place 400 to 1500 feet from the edge of Port property. Maximum pile 
driving noise at the edge of Port property would be 93 dBA. Other construe 
tion noise would not be expected to be heard beyond Port property. Con- 
struction noise will not be further discussed in the EIR. 

Increased truck traffic in and out of the terminals could elevate noise 
levels in the vicinity and along principal arterials such as Army and Third 
Streets. An increase in total trips on affected routes of over 2 5% would 
be required in order to produce a noticeable increase in traffic-related 
noise. 2 The project would result in about 100 truck trips per day above 
present truck traffic levels. The present 24-hour vehicle trip levels on 
Army St. west of Indiana are 12,700 and on Third St. south of Twenty Sixth 
St. are 22,100.3 Making a worst case assumption that all project-rel ated 
trips would pass over Third Street and/or Army Street, even allowing for 
the greater noise generation of trailer trucks than cars, project-generated 
increases in truck traffic would not be great enough to produce an audible 
change in traffic noise. 

A-20 



Appendices 



The Southern Pacific Railroad currently operates a midnight freight train 
out of San Francisco Monday through Saturday with return to the City at 11 
a.m. the next morning (average about 10 cars, maximum about 20 cars). The 
Port would use this train for small loads and would use 50-car, one-mile- 
long unit trains departing at a similar time in order to meet connecting 
trans-continental trains leaving Los Angeles the following morning. The 
Port does not have control over Southern Pacific train schedules. 



Two trains each night would be expected with full operation of the ICTF, 
doubling the number of train trips. Longer trains would produce noise 
levels similar to those of existing trains which would last longer for each 
train passage because of greater train length. In some cases, the noise 
level would decrease because the lubrication mechanism used to reduce fric- 
tion on some new types of cars also reduces noise generation. This would 
not represent a substantial difference from the existing setting. Noise 
impacts of train traffic will not be covered in the EIR. 



1. Environmental Protection Element, Comprehensive Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco, 1974, pp. 16-17. 

2. A doubling of automobile traffic is required to produce an increase in 
noise level of about 3 dBA, the minimum audible change in noise level. 
FEIR for the West Side Trans port/ Storage Project, Vol. II, Appendices, 
EE 75.304, SCH 77052347, 1977, p. 30. Since trucks are noisier than 
automobiles a smaller increase is required to produce the same noise 
increase produced by cars. 

3. February 16, 1983, count on Army St. west of Indiana St.: 8,500 east- 
bound trips and 4235 westbound trips; May 3, 1983, count on Third St. 
south of 26th St.: 12,108 northbound trips and 10,018 southbound trips. 
Stanley Chin, San Franciso Department of Public Works, Traffic Engin- 
eering, telephone conversation of June 4, 1985. 



A-21 



Appendices 



6. Air Qual ity/CI imate . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Violate any ambient air quality 
standard or contribute substan- 
tially to an existing or projected 

air quality violation? X X 



*b. Expose sensitive receptors to 

substantial pollutant concentrations? X X 

c. Permeate its vicinity with objec- 
tionable odors? X 

d. Alter wind, moisture or temperature 
(including sun shading effects) so 
as to substantially affect public 
areas, or change the climate either 

in the community or region? X X 

Increased truck, train and ship trips would contribute to a localized 
degradation of air quality along their respective routes and would contri- 
bute to occasional existing air quality violations. Air quality impacts 
will be discussed in the EIR. 

Prevailing winds on the site are from the west and northwest, with the Bay 
immediately downwind of the site. Modifications proposed for the site 
would not significantly alter wind currents in the area nor cast shadows 
over any public areas. These topics will not be discussed further in the 
EIR. 

7. Utilities/Public Services . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Breach published national, state 
or local standards relating to 

solid waste or litter control? X 



*b. Extend a sewer trunk line with 

capacity, to serve new development? 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-22 



Appendices 



c. Substantially increase demand for 
schools, recreation or other 

public facilities? X X 

d. Require major expansion of power, 

water, or communications facilities? X X 

All sewer connections to the site are already in place and new development 
on the terminals would not be of the type that would contribute substan- 
tially to wastewater generation. Thus sewer capacity would not need to be 
expanded to accomodate proposed development. Islais Creek receives sewage 
overflows from 1,700 acres of the City during storms when the City's com- 
bined sewer system cannot handle the flows. Peak storm flows of sewage 
reach 141 gallons per minute; they temporarily lower salinity and raise 
the col i form levels in Islais Creek. * Existing sewer overflows would not 
be affected by the project. This subject will not be further discussed in 
the EIR. 

As part of the project, Pier 98 would be dedicated to public access to 
serve open space and recreational needs of the surrounding area. Insignifi 
cant increases in services would be associated with this development. Ser- 
vices to Pier 98 will not be discussed in the EIR. 

Currently, bridge lifts on Islais Creek number about 230 per year. Because 
the bridge proposed to cross Islais Creek just east of the existing Third 
Street drawbridge would be a fixed crossing, there would be no need for the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) to keep the present bridge in operable 
condition. Staff required to maintain and operate the present bridge also 
service the two drawbriges in China Basin; thus, their employment would 
not be terminated as a result of the closure of upper Islais Creek to 
navigation. 



A-23 



Appendices 



The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the proposed project 
would not create any additional demand for their respective services. 2 
Currently there are no unusual problems with the public safety environment 
around the site aside from those created by traffic. Both departments have 
indicated that, in general, improvements to a site lead to better security 
and fire safety. 2 



No major expansion of power or communication lines would be necessary as a 
result of the project. The Port would underground all power lines cur- 
rently above ground at the North Terminal. This would be done at the 
Port's expense and would not require additional personnel or equipment from 
PG&E. These issues will not be discussed in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. Hoffman, Roderick W. and Meighan, Richard B., The impact of combined 
sewer overflows from San Francisco on the western shore of Central San 
Francisco Bay, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 56:1277-1287, 
1984. 

2. Officer Mahoney, Permit Officer, SFPD, Potrero Station and Michael Pat- 
terson, Port Fire Marshal, telephone conversations of April 24, 1985. 



8. Biology . Could the project: 

*a. Substantially affect a rare or 
endangered species of animal or 
plant or the habitat of the species? 

*b. Substanti al ly dimini sh habitat 
for fish, wildlife or plants, 
or interfere substantially with 
the movement of any resident or 
migratory fish or wildlife species? 

c. Require removal of substantial 
numbers of mature, scenic trees? 



Yes No Discussed 
X X 

X X 

X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 

A-24 



Appendices 



Rare or endangered species may be affected by the dedication of Pier 98 as 
publicly accessible open space. These may include: the Least Tern, the 
Brown Pelican and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. A biological study of the 
area would be made. If biologically sensitive areas or endangered species 
are found, the Port would follow the biologist's recommendations for public 
uses compatible with preservation of biological values. This would mitigate 
potential biological impacts to insignificance and this subject will not be 
discussed in the EIR. 

9. Geology /Topography . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Expose people or structures to major 
geologic hazards (slides, subsidence, 

erosion and liquefaction)? X X 

b. Change substantially the topography 
or any unique geologic or physical 

features of the site? X X 

The project area is located entirely on landfill and is prone to subsidence, 
erosion from wave action of Bay waters, and potential tsunami inundation. 
In the event of a 1906 magnitude earthquake the area would be subject to 
violent ground shaking and subsidence. 1 

The project would be constructed under supervision of California-registered 
structural engineers and would comply with all applicable seismic and life 
safety standards. 

Portions of the South Terminal near the proposed ICTF would be graded, and a 
10 ft. man-made berm^ running roughly parallel to Cargo Way would be leveled. 
At the North Terminal settlement increases towards the Bay .3 Past differen- 
tial settlement has resulted in damage to a sewer outfall 4 passing under the 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 

A-25 



Appendices 



Pier. Recent settlement damage is currently under investigation, and it is 
expected that repair work would overlap with upgrading of cargo facilities. 
The two construction activities would be coordinated by the Port and the 
Department of Public Works. 

Geologic and seismic impacts will not be further discussed in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. URS/John A. Bl ume & Associates, San Francisco Seismic Safety Investiga- 
tion, 1974. 

2. Berm: an artificial ridge of earth. 

3. Dames & Moore, Geotechnical Investigation, Army Street Terminal (Pier 
80), San Francisco, California, for the San Francisco Port Commission, 
May 12, 1982. 

4. A force main carrying effluent from the Southeast booster pump station 
on the south side of Islais Creek just west of the existing bridge. 



10. Water . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Substantially degrade water quality, 

or contaminate a public water supply? X X 



*b. Substantially degrade or deplete 
ground water resources, or inter- 
fere substantially with ground 
water recharge? 

*c. Cause substantial flooding, 
erosion or siltation? 



Dredging to widen Islais Creek channel would temporarily degrade Bay water 
quality in the site area. Dredging is done regularly to maintain channel 
depth. Impacts, if any, would be expected only in areas not now subject to 
routine maintenance dredging. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-26 



Appendices 



Sediments in Islais Creek contain 37-209 milligram/kilogram dry weight 
(mg/kg) copper, 29-534 mg/kg chromium, 1-63 mg/kg silver, 1-6.5 mg/kg cad- 
mium, 41-882 mg/kg lead, 95-194 mg/kg zinc, 0.2-1.2 mg/kg mercury, 112-130 
mg/kg nickel, and 5.5-11.8 mg/kg of arsenic. 1»2 These ranges indicate that 
there is considerable variation from place to place within Islais Creek. 
Some of the mercury, and possibly other elements, may be metabolized by 
microorganisms into more toxic forms after suspension in the water as a 
result of dredging activities. This would occur for a few hours or days 
after dredging and would not be expected to produce detectable effects on 
food chains involving human food species. The metals in the sediments are 
derived from street runoff, past ship bottom scraping activities, etc. 
Dredging and disposal of the dredged material (spoils) would require a per- 
mit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which would require testing of the 
material to be dredged in order to determine appropriate methods of dredg- 
ing and a safe disposal site. Dredging and spoils disposal will not be dis- 
cussed in the EIR. 

Pile driving into clean sand would cause temporary local increases in water 
turbidity, which would temporarily cause organisms in the water to avoid the 
area and swim around it. This subject will not be discussed in the EIR. 

Approximately 50 acres would be newly paved in the South Terminal and ICTF, 
an increase from 140 to 190 paved acres (an increase from 68% paved to 93% 
of the 205 acre site paved). 3 Runoff from paved surfaces impervious to 
water would increase but not substantially in comparison to existing condi- 
tions. Runoff will not be discussed in the EIR. 

The San Francisco Bay/Delta system is affected by such factors as tides, 
current paths, freshwater inflow and urban discharges (waste disposal). 



A-27 



Appendices 



The interaction of these with any other biological and chemical factors 
leads to the diversity in water quality which exists throughout the Bay. 
Compared to the influence of these factors, the long-term impacts of ter- 
minal development are expected to be small or negligible. 4 

All ships are required by federal law to pump all waste discharges into 
holding tanks when within the Bay or other ports. Water quality issues 
related to maritime traffic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 

Removal of some existing fill on the south side of Islais Creek could affect 
water quality in Islais Creek. Potential impacts of removal of this fill 
will be discussed in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. Analysis of samples collected April 20, 1982; letter of James Salerno, 
Water Quality Chemist, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, San Francisco 
Department of Public Works, April 10, 1985, to Dr. Selina Bendix, Bendix 
Environmental Research, Inc., EIR consultant. 

2. Hoffman, Roderick W. and Meighan, Richard B., The impact of combined 
sewer overflows from San Francisco on the western shore of Central San 
Francisco Bay, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 56:1277-1287, 
1984. 

3. Blazick, Eugene M., Project Manager, Vi ckerman* Zachary Mi 1 1 er, memoran- 
dum to Randall S. Rossi, Port of San Francisco, May 31, 1985. 

4. San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan, Final Technical Report , April, 
1982, page 117. ' 



11. Energy/Natural Resources . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Encourage activities which result 

in the use of large amounts of fuel, 
water, or energy, or use these in 

a wasteful manner? X X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-28 



Appendices 



b. Have a substantial effect on the 
potential use, extraction, or 

depletion of a natural resource? X 

By increasing the potential throughput of the SFCT, this project would 
increase the quantity of gas and diesel fuel consumed on-site to operate 
yard equipment as well as off-site energy increases associated with truck, 
rail and ship trips required to move container cargo. 

The relative fuel effectiveness of various means of transportation is: 
truck about 60 ton-miles per gallon (3000 BTU per metric tonne-mile), rail- 
road about 250 ton-miles per gallon (570 BTU per metric tonne-mile), and 
water > 300 ton-miles per gallon (360 BTU per metric tonne-mil e) In- 
creases in the more energy-efficient marine shipping of container cargo 
will take place without regard to changes at the Port of San Francisco. 
The proposed modernization would affect the portion of Pacific Coast ship- 
ping handled by the Port and, therefore, the distribution of energy consump 
tion for cargo handling among Pacific Coast ports. 

The proposed new facilities would shift some land transportation of cargo 
from truck to rail and would decrease the number of lifting and transfer 
operations per container. Both actions would decrease the average amount 
of energy used per cargo container. 

The proposed project would increase total energy use at the Port of San 
Francisco, decrease the average amount of energy used per cargo container, 
and would not significantly affect the total energy consumed in Pacific 
Coast cargo handling operations. 

Energy impacts will not be discussed further in the EIR. 

A-29 



Appendices 



NOTES: 

1. Gal 1 on/ ton-mi 1 e estimates from information in Grimmer, D. P. & Lusz- 
czynski, Lost Power, Environment, April 1972, p. 15, and Federal Energy 
Information Administration, Energy Conservation indicators, 1983 Annual 
Report, October 1984, p. 67. BTU/tonne-mil e estimates in parentheses from 
Leigh Stamets, California Energy Commission, telephone conversation of 3 May 
1985. The quantitative differences in relative values of the two estimates 
for each mode of transportation result from differences in methodology. 
The methods agree in the qualitative relative efficiency of the three modes 
of transport. 



12. Hazards . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Create a potential public health 
hazard or involve the use, pro- 
duction or disposal of materials 
which pose a hazard to people or 
animal or plant populations in 

the area affected? X X 



*b. Interfere with emergency response 

plans or emergency evacuation plans? 

c. Create a potentially substantial 
fire hazard? 



Currently all fuel is brought to the site via truck and stored above ground, 
Underground storage tanks would be constructed at the North Terminal to 
serve diesel operated machinery such as container cranes, port packers, 
etc. Underground diesel fuel storage tanks may also be installed at the 
ICTF. Any underground tanks would conform to the Sher Act which governs 
construction of underground fuel storage tanks and mandates their inspec- 
tion and maintenance to prevent spills or other mishaps, and to the release 
detection, prevention and corrosion regulations to be issued by the US 
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Public Law 98-616, the 1984 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-30 



Appendices 



amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These tanks will 
not be discussed in the EIR. 

Methane may be generated by decomposing garbage under the engineered fill. 
This methane would constitute a potential fire and explosion hazard for 
construction operations and buildings on the project site. Methane will be 
di scussed in the EIR. 

A relatively small portion of the container cargo presently handled is 
classified as hazardous under Coast Guard regulations (2% or about 600 con- 
tainers in 19841). The percent of hazardous cargo would not be expected to 
change; the absolute amount of hazardous cargo could increase with in- 
creased cargo throughput. The U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. 
Coast Guard regulate handling, storage and tranportation of hazardous cargo 
under 33 CFR Part 126, 46 CFR and 49 CFR. 2 

Worker safety and health are governed by OSHA General Industry standards in 
29 CFR Part 1910, Marine Terminals 29 CFR Part 1917, and Longshoring 29 CFR 
Part 1918. These regulations require that hazardous cargo be identified 
before cargo handling operations begin, that such cargo be earful ly secured 
to prevent accidents and that, in case of accidental spillage or leak, 
employees be removed from the affected area until the nature of the hazard 
is determined and appropriate equipment is available for safe handling and 
disposal of the cargo. The Port has standard procedures for handling 
hazardous cargo. When Port staff ascertain that hazardous cargo is coming 
to the Port or is stored at the Port, the Port Fire Marshal is notified and 
in turn notifies the Coast Guard. 3 



A-31 



Appendices 



NOTES: 

1. Roger Peters, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation of May 6, 
1985. 

2. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
Longshoring Industry, OSHA 2232, 1983. p. 24. 

3. Walstrom, William, Port of San Francisco, Ian Beck, CAlifornia Stevedore 
and Ballast Co., and Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, 
telephone conversations of June 5, 1985. 



13. Cultural . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Disrupt or adversely affect a pre- 
historic or historic archeol ogical 
site or a property of historic or 
cultural significance to a community 
or ethnic or social group; or a 
pal eontol ogi cal site except as a 

part of a scientific study? X X 



r b. Conflict with established recrea- 
tional, educational, religious or 
scientific uses of the area? 

c. Conflict with the preservation of 
buildings subject to the provisions 
of Article 10 or (proposed) Article 
11 of the City Plann'ng Code? 



The project site is entirely on fill. The area served as a garbage dump 
and then received engineered fill, most of it after 1960. Project grading 
would affect the top engineered fill layer. Pile driving would take place 
in sand which was empl aced after dredging up to 120 feet down to Bay mud. 
Cultural resources are not expected to be encountered during construction 
because piles would go through clean sand and grading would affect engi- 
neered fill. No excavation is proposed. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-32 



Appendices 



the project sponsor has agreed as part of the project to a mitigation measure 

which addresses this potential impact (see D. Mitigation Measures, page 

31). Issues associated with cultural impacts will not be discussed in the 
EIR. 

C. OTHER . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

Require approval of permits from 
City Departments other than the 
Department of City Planning or 
Bureau of Building Inspection, 
or from Regional, State or Federal 

Agencies? X X 

Permits would be required from the Bay Conservation and Development Commis- 
sion (BCDC). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard 
would have jurisdiction. The Coast Guard would be federal lead agency in 
granting permits for closure of Islais Creek to navigation west of the 
existing Third Street bridge and for construction of a fixed bridge over 
Islais Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers would be a permitting agency for 
Pier 98, the new cranes, and the two new berths on Islais Creek if they 
were to be built. Several other regional and State agencies, such as the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game, 
would comment to the permitting agencies as part of the permitting process. 
Permitting and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction will be discussed in 
the EIR. 

D. MITIGATION MEASURES Yes No N/A Discussed 

1. If any significant effects have 
been identified, are there ways 

to mitigate them? X X 

2. Are all mitigation measures 
identified above included in 

the project? _X_ X 



A-33 



Appendices 



MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT: 

1. Architectural and Historic Resources . Should evidence of cultural or 
historic artifacts of significance be found during project excavation, the 
Environmental Review Officer and the President of the Landmarks Preserva- 
tion Advisory Board would be immediately notified. The project sponsor 
would employ an archaeologist or other expert to help the Office of Envi- 
ronmental Review determine the significance of the find and whether feasi- 
ble measures, including appropriate security measures, could be implemented 
to preserve or recover such artifacts. The Environmental Review Officer 
would then recommend specific mitigation measures, if necessary, and recom- 
mendations would be sent to the State Office of Historic Preservation. 
Excavation or construction which might damage the discovered cultural 
resources would be suspended for a maximum of four weeks to permit inspec- 
tion, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate. 

2. Ai r Qual ity . The California Health and Safety Code requires that mea- 
sures be taken to minimize dust generation by watering demolition materials 
and soils. An effective watering program (complete coverage of construc- 
tion area twice daily) can reduce emissions by about 50%. The project 
sponsor would require the contractor to water the site at least twice a 
day, which would reduce airborne construction dust by about 50% and reduce 
the probability of exceeding state and federal standards. 

3. Geology . A California-registered structural engineer and a geotechnical 
consultant would prepare a detailed foundation and structural design report 
for the project. The project sponsor would construct the project in accor- 
dance with the recommendations of the report pertaining to foundations, 
subsidence and earthquake safety. 



A-34 



Appendices 



4 * Biology . Project sponsor would initiate a biological study of the pro- 
posed Pier 98 public access area and would follow the recommendations of a 
biologist in assuring that, if biologically sensitive areas or areas found 
to support endangered species exist on Pier 98, they would remain undevel- 
oped in the manner of an ecological preserve. This would mitigate the poten 
biological impacts to insignificance. 

5. Land Use . Construction of a new fixed bridge would prevent ships from 
coming up Islais Creek to the existing copra plant west of the existing 
drawbridge. Installation of a pipeline from the navigable portion of the 
Creek to the plant would provide for continued operation. 

Additional mitigation measures for the project will be discussed in the EIR 
as impacts are identified. 

E. ALTERNATIVES 

The following alternatives to the proposed project will be discussed in the 
EIR: 

1. No Project . Conditions on the project site if no improvements were 
made and no modernization of the container handling facilities took place. 

2. 2.5 Acre Parcel Purchase/Addition Along Army Street . Port acquisition 
of a 2.5 acre parcel of land just outside their present boundary along the 
north side of Army Street to be used for truck queuing space and a relo- 
cated entry gate. 

3. Islais Creek Bridge . Movable bridge : A movable bridge on Islais Creek 
with the waterway remaining accessible as at present and continued mainte- 
nance of the existing drawbridge. No bridge : The project with no inter- 
terminal connection except for the City streets currently being used. 



A-3 5 



Appendices 



4. ICTF With Different Configuration . Alternative track configurations 
for the ICTF inside the South Terminal. 

5. Entrance Gate Configurations . A main entrance to both terminals along 
Army Street with South Terminal traffic using the interterminal bridge 
versus the South Terminal having a primary entrance off Cargo Way and the 
Army Street entrance serving the North Terminal alone. 



F. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Yes No Discussed 

r l. Does the project have the potential to degrade 
the quality of the environment, substantially 
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 
species, cause a fish or wildlife population 
to drop below sel f sustaining levels, threaten 
to eliminate a plant or animal community, 
reduce the number or restrict the range of a 
rare or endangered plant or animal, or elimi- 
nate important examples of the major periods 

of California history or prehistory? X X 



*2. Does the project have the potential to achieve 
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, 
environmental goals? 

*3. Does the project have possible environmental 
effects which are individually limited, but 
cumulatively considerable? (Analyze in the 
light of past projects, other current pro- 
jects, and probable future projects.) 

*4. Would the project cause substantial adverse 
effects on human beings, either directly or 
indi recti y? 

*5. Is there a serious public controversy con- 
cerning the possible environmental effect of 
the project? 



• 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-36 



Appendices 



G. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY; 



I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the 
Department of City Planning. 



I find that although the proposed project could have a significant 

effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect 

in this case because the mitigation measures, numbers , in 

the discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. 
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi 11 be prepared. 

X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on 

the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 



Barbara W. Sahm 
Environmental Review Officer 

for 

Dean L. Macris 

Di rector of PI anning 

Date: June 21 , 1985 



A-37 



Appendi ces 



Appendix B. Transportation Level of Service Definitions. 

Level of Volume/Capacity 
Service Description V/C Ratio 



A Level of Service A describes a condition where the - 0.60 

approach to an intersection appears quite open and 
turning movements are made easily. Little or no delay 
is experienced. No vehicles wait longer than one red 
traffic signal indication. The traffic operation can 
generally be described as excellent. 

B Level of Service B describes a condition where the 0.61 - 0.70 

approach to an intersection is occasionally fully 
utilized and some delays may be encountered. Many 
drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within 
groups of vehicles. The traffic operation can be 
generally described as very good. 

C Level of Service C describes a condition where the 0.71 - 0.80 

approach to an intersection if often fully utilized 
and back-ups may occur behind turning vehicles. Most 
drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably 
so. The driver occasionally may have to wait more 
than one red traffic signal indication. The traffic 
operation can generally be described as good. 

D Level of Service D describes a condition of increasing 0.81 - 0.90 
restriction causing substantial delays and queues of 
vehicles on approaches to the intersection during 
short times within the peak period. However, there 
are enough signal cycles with lower demand such that 
queues are periodically cleared, thus preventing exces- 
sive back-ups. The traffic operations can generally 
be described as fai r. 

E Capacity occurs at Level of Service E. It represents 0.91 - 1.00 
the most number of vehicles that any particular inter- 
section can accommodate. At capacity there may be 
long queues of vehicles waiting up-stream of the 
intersection and vehicles may be delayed up to several 
signal cycles. 

F Level of Service F represents a jammed condition. Back- 1.00 
ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may 
restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the 
approach under consideration. Hence, volumes of vehicles 
passing through the intersection vary from signal cycle 
tr signal cycle. Because of the jammed condition, this 
volume would be less than capacity. 

Source: San Francisco Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, Bureau 
of Engineering, 1965. 



Appendices 



oo 



oo 



o 



co 
oo 

Oi 



co 



co 

»-H <=> 



OO 



OJ 
OO 



00 

o 



CO 

O CO 



00 
04 



00 

on 



oo o 



CO 



o- 
o 



CD 
•— t 

o o 



CO 

O —i 



00 

as 



a: 

< 
s 

co 

fi- 
fe 
< 
fi- 

-4 

o 

a, 
< 

o 

u 

co 

u 
fe 
< 

Cu 

fe 

< 

CO 



oo 



CO 

a 

OS 

<j 
a 
fe 
< 

f- 
co 



OS Q 

Q 2 

W > 
CO 



fi- 
fe 

< 

H 
:d 
_a 
-J 
O 

0- 



lO 



1/5 
CO 



OS 



_ 6 
O a 

o 



cu 
•a 

x 
o 
c 
o 

£ 

c 

o 

-O 
t_ 

CO 

U 



CU 

bo 
at 

C 

cu 
> 

CO 

k 
3 

O 

.c 

i 



cu 
bo 

03 

cu cu 

> o 

<o c 

C CU 
3 0) 
O cj 

CU 

.£? d 
ac z 



e 

a, 
a, 



cu x: 
bo i 
co oo 



cu 
bo 
co 

I g 

C-, (0 
3 TD 
o CU 



cu 
> 

CO 

c 
3 

o 

I 

oo 



M ° 

S Z 



oj 



CO 
o 

cu 
c 
o 

N 

O 



6 

a, 

a, 
•* — ' 

cu 
bo 

CO 

cu 
> 

CO 
t~ 

3 

o 

-C 



cu 
bo 

cO 

co 

cu o 
> o 

CO c 

t- cu 
2 

2 cu 

4^ CU 

£ ° 
.5? d 
X fe 



cu 
c 
o 

fe 



OJ 

O 

fe 

cu 

X 

o 



c 

cu 
b£j 

o 



|6 
1 a 
a. 
— * 

cu 
bo 
co 
t- 
cu 
> 

CO 
t- 
3 

o 



CU 

bo 
CO 

cu cu 

> CJ 

co c 

^ eo 

t- cu 

O CJ 

-C x 

cu 

5 9 

•SP d 

I 2 



00 
f-t 

o o 
o 



OJl 

o" 

CO 



sz 
3 



G 
a, 

cu 
bo 

CO 

cu 
> 

00 

l_ 
3 

o 
sz 

I 

CM 



cu 
bo 

CO 
t- 

cu 
> 

CO 



to 
cu 

CJ 

u c 

3 CO 

X3 
jC cu 

1 CJ 

Tj< CJ 

OJ x 
OJ 

I o 

5 d 

£ 2 



co 

t~- CO 



CO 
OJ 







CO 














0) 




*-> 


eo 


CO 


e 


a 


bo 


CJ 




3 








OJ 


CO 


o- 


ho 

00 




(-. 


OJ 


OJ 


•o 


> 


c 


oo 


0J 


t_ 


a 


3 




O 




n 

i 




TT 


00 


OJ 






o 




E- 





OJ 

bo 

CO 

u 

2 cu 

CO 

c— C 

3 CO 
O T3 

cu 

CJ 

o 

X 
CU 



9. 

« o 

.y>d 

X 2 



A-39 



Appendices 



00 



o 

CD 



w . o 
in z 
in 



CO 

U 
Z 

z 

CO 



001 







oo 






00 


fH 


CT3 


1 


r-1 | 


o 




oo 




o> 




i— 1 




>• 






O 1 


< 


00 

CT> 




«— 1 1 










CO 






co 


z 


Q 


<< 


CiJ 02 


E-« 


H 


p 


< Q 


,-3 


E- Z 




CO <^ 


o 


E- 1 


a. 


CO 






< 




O 




o 





02 
W 

Q 

w 

Oh 



E- 

z 

E- 

J 
O 
Cu 



O 

z 



to 

Lf5 



o 
Z 



CO 



O 

z 



o 

to 



LO 

cof 
£ 

C 

co 
cu 

% 



m 
co 



ITS 



CU 

c 
o 
Z 



m i 
• i 
ft i 



c 
o 
Z 



c 






CO 


CO 


cu 




e 








*= CU 






CJ ej 




£ 


*i 




cu 


c cu 

C CU 




bO 

co 


O O 




t- 


cu X 




cu 


u w 




> 






x: 


3 3 




+-» 


C C 




c 


c c 




o 


< < 


•a 

CO 


J 




Le 





cu 
to 

CO 

cu 

« s 

x: o 
c 

c cO 
O t3 
c cu 

r 

co s 



CO 



Cfl 

£ O 

.£? 6 
X z 



5- 

bD CU 

6 g 

w CO 

cu xj 
bo cu 
CO cu ■ 

U CJ 

cu X 
> cu 

< ^ 

•*-> . 

c o 
o Z 
E 



o 
c 

<D 
C 

cO 

CO 

•a 
f- 

cO 
T3 

c 

CO 



cu 

bD 
CO 
c 
cu 
> 

CO 
"cO 

c 
c 

< 



cu 
cu 
c- 

CO 

•a 
u 

CO 

o 
o 



•a 

CU 



cu 

"o 
cj 



CO 
T3 

■<r 
oo 
• 

o 

00 



u 

CO 
0) 

>> 

(h 

cu 

Ou 

cu 

cj 
c 
o 

c 

CO 

x: 

cu 
o 
£ 

X3 
cu 
•a 

QJ 

cu 
t) 

X 

cu 
eu 

XJ 



o 
c 



•a 
u 
co 
•O 
c 

CO 

■*-» 

co 

"cO 
t- 
cu 

•a 
cu 



CO 

CO 

-a 

C-c 
CO 

•a 
c 

CO 



O 

a 

cu 
bD 
cO 

cu 
> 

CO 

t- 

3 

o 

I 



CU 
cfl 
CO 
cu 

JZ 

E- 



cu 

CU 

cu 
o 

X 

cu 
t- 

o 



-a 
cu 
•o 
cu 
cu 
ej 

X 

cu 
cu 

X5 



CO 

cu 
>. 

I 

CO 

CO 

c 
o 

cu 

CO 
CO 

n 



5 



CO 

cu 

CO 
CO 

cu 

CJ 
X 

w 



CO 
3 
C 

c 

< 

cu 

a 
cu 
a, 
x 
W 



J22 oo 

cu 



cu 



e 

a. 
a 

» I 

CO 



o 

-a * 
t- c 

cfl c 
•a o 

CO 

T3 
CU 
CJ CJ 
£ 3 
CO TJ 
«-> CU 
CO t- 
co 



CO 



co 



co 

S 

Cm 

CU 



c 

cu 
> 

'bD 



co 

cu 

CO 

o 

-a 
c 



o 
Z 



CO 

•a 
o 

CO 

cu 
>> 

cu 

c 
cu 

c 

CO 



CO 

cu 

3 

CO 
CO 

x: 

CU 

t-l 

CO 











-a 




C-i 




CO 




•a 




c 




CO 


cu 


♦-» 


bo 


CO 


CO 


"cO 


C-. 

CU' 




> 


cu 


cO 


fed 


bD 
c 


he 


"c 


c 

3 


E- 









CO 



Ou 

Cu 

Cfl 

CO 

x: 
■*-• 

t- . 

cu 

oco 

e e 

2 'bb 
c 3 
cu w 

bb° 



lo "O 

cu p 
CO cu c 
CJ 



CO 



c 

cu o 



♦J CO 



CU t- 
«-• CJ 

cu ♦-« 

S w 
fc 6 
o 

SiJ 

3 -Q 
O 3 

u ° 
CU ti 

cu cu 
E G » 

t- cO c 

CU f- CO 
{-I 

cj ^3 



CO 



u 

-a 



CO 



CO 
CU 



£ £ 



CO 

cn 

cu 
x: 



co 

c 

o 



cu 
£ 
o 

O cO 

a Z 

_. c 
co cu 



CJ 

c 

o 



CO CJ 

CU Oh 

JC CO 

E- E- 

LA 



II II II 



£ *> bo 
a m c 

Cu 3 = 



o 
z 



CO 

u 
•dl 

(-> 
CO 

OQ 

CO 1 

cu 

c^ 
c - 
3 

o 

CO I 
0) 

02 

2 
c 

•— * I 

CO 

o 



p-gSS 



< 

DQ 

cu 
o 

3 

o 

CO 



men 
oo o 
ctj I cn 



A-40 



Appendices 
APPENDIX D 
LINER SERVICES CALLING THE SFCT 



North Terminal Lines 



STEAMSHIP LINE 



AGENT 



1. Barber Blue Sea 



2. Empresa Lineas Maritimas 
Argentinas S.A. (ELMA) 
41 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 
(415) 391-2171 

3. Independence Line 



4. Lloyd Brasiliero 



5. Lykes Brothers SS Co. 

100 Spear St., 6th & 7th floors 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
(415) 227-2000 

6. Nauru Pacific 



7. Naviera Interamericana 
Navicana S.A. 



8. Nedlloyd Line 



9. Pacific Islands 
Transport Line 



Barber Steamship Lines of Ca. 
360 22nd St., Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94612 
(415) 839-6891 

Transpacific Transportation Co, 
650 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
(415) 393-9100 



Kerr Steamship, Inc. 

One Market Plaza, Suite 2400 

Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 764-0200 

Kerr Steamship, Inc. 

One Market Plaza, Suite 2400 

Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 764-0200 



Nauru Air & Shipping Agency 
China Basin Building 
185 Berry Street, Suite 2803 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
(415) 543-1737 

Seapac Services Inc. 

433 Hegenberger Rd., Suite 200 

Oakland, CA 94612 

(415) 562-6175 

Transpacific Transportation Co. 
650 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
(415) 393-9100 

General Steamship Corp., Ltd. 
400 Cal ifornia Street 
San Franci sco, CA 94104 
(415) 772-9200 



A-41 



Appendices 



North Terminal Lines (Cont.) 
STEAMSHIP LINE 

10. Pan Ocean/Anco 

11. Scan Pacific Line 

12. Shipping Corp. of India 

South Terminal Lines 
STEAMSHIP LINE 

1. China Ocean Shipping Co. 
(COSCO) 

2. Columbus Line 

650 California St., Suite 1020 
S.F., CA 94108 
Phone: (415) 397-5500 

3. Evergreen Line 

4. Grancol umbi ana Line 

5. National Shipping Corp. 

of the Phil i ppines 

6. Pan Ocean/Anco 



AGENT 

Wi 1 1 iams, Dimond & Co. 
50 California St., Suite 606 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 

Williams, Dimond & Co. 
50 California St., Suite 606 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 

Norton Lilly 

633 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

(415) 772-7300 



AGENT 

CALCO 

633 Battery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 772-7300 (Norton Lilly) 
772-7388 (CALCO) 

Transpacific Transportation Co. 
650 California St. 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
(415) 393-9100 

Evergreen Marine Corp. 
50 California St., Suite 3325 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 781-2022 

Beaufort Navigation, Inc. 
50 California St., Suite 3100 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 433-6955 

Inter-Pacific Shipping Co. 
303 Hegenberger Rd., Suite 411 
Oakland, CA 94621 
(415) 568-6034 

Williams, Dimond & Co. 

50 California St., Suite 606 

San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 



A -42 



Appendices 



South Terminal Lines (Cont.) 
STEAMSHIP LINE 

7. Stolt Tankers 

8. Tokyo Marine 

9. United Yugoslav 
(Splosna Plovba Pi ran) 



AGENT 

Interocean Steamship Corp. 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
(415) 398-2000 

Williams, Dimond & Co. 
50 Cal ifornia Street 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 

TASA United Agency, Inc. 
350 Sansome St., Suite 810 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
(415) 989-7344 



Source: Port of San Francisco memorandum A00635 of June 21, 1985. 



GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Con't.) 



Liquid Bulk : Liquid cargoes, such as petroleum or vegetable oil, that are shipped 
in tankers rather than in drums or other small, individual units. 

Metric revenue ton : A measurement of cargo by weight or volume, depending on the 
commodity. 

Metric ton (tonne): 1000 kilograms or approximately 2204 pounds. 
Micro-bridge : see Bridging. 

MHHW : Mean higher high water. The average of the two high tides along coasts where 
the two daily high tides are unequal. 

Mini-bridge : see Bridging. 

MLLW: Mean lower low water. The average of the two low tides along coasts where 
the two daily low tides are unequal. 

Neo-Bulk : Cargoes shipped in large quantities and having some characteristics of 
bulk commodities. Neo-bulk cargoes in the Bay Area include autos, steel products 
and newsprint. 

Port packer : A diesel-powered container mover that picks up containers from the 
side; operates on Port property only. 

Refers : Pronounced reefers. Refrigerated containers used for perishable cargo, 
which plug into electrical connections on board ship, train, truck or at a backland 
storage facility. 

R0/R0 : Roll on/Roll off. Cargo that is driven on or off a ship, usually trucks or 
heavy machinery. 

SFCT : San Francisco Container Terminal. 

Short ton : 2000 pounds or approximately 907 kilograms. 

Slingshot Operation : A system of assembling cars in which short train sections are 
sent from a port to a train yard for assembly into long unit trains. 

TEU : Twenty Foot Equivalent Units or one 20-foot-l ong-container. Many containers 
are 40 feet long (sometimes known as FEU, Forty Foot Equivalent Unit) and equal to 
2 TEUs. Container ship capacity is often stated in terms of TEUs. 

TOFC : Trailer on flat car. Container plus truck trailer combination that rides as 
a unit on a flat car in a "piggy-back" arrangement. 

Throughput : The amount of cargo (usually in tons) that can be moved through a 
berth or terminal. Theoretical throughput is determined by a complex combination 
of factors, such as ship size and frequency of arrivals, acres of backland for con- 
tainer storage, number of container cranes, and inland transport transfer and pro- 
cessing. 

Transtainer : A diesel-powered container mover that picks up containers from above; 
operates on Port property only. 

Unit train : A long train operated without service frills or stops to connect and 
di sconnect cars between origin and destination. 



(see also inside front cover)